News From CHEST Physician®

If you’ve worked in the ICU then you’ve worked with nurses and, if you’re lucky, you’ve worked with some great ones. Working in multiple units, you may have noticed some differences unit to unit in the dynamics of efficiency, staff retention, and interprofessional dynamics among nurses. Or as the kids would say nowadays, the “vibe” of the unit. The American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN) has been studying the Nurse Work Environment since 2005 with the goal of promoting and improving a Healthy Work Environment (HWE).

There are six standards for an HWE according to the AACN, which include: Skilled Communication, True Collaboration, Effective Decision Making, Appropriate Staffing, Meaningful Recognition, and Authentic Leadership. Other than happy nurses, why is an HWE important? Multiple studies have supported that HWEs are associated with high patient satisfaction scores, shorter hospitalization time, increased patient safety, and reduction in adverse events and mortality. Hospitals that get this right can earn the Beacon Award of Excellence, which recognizes units that meet the practices of HWE.

In October 2022, the AACN released its 2021 Nurse Work Environments Status Report earlier than planned to assess how the public health crisis associated with COVID-19 has affected nurses and their work environment. Unsurprisingly, the results were dissatisfactory; 9,335 nurses from 50 states participated. Starting with the worse score, appropriate staffing, only 20% reported having appropriate and skilled staffing at least 75% of the time in 2021. That is the lowest recorded report, even lower than it was during the 2006 nursing shortage.

Less than 50% felt their organization valued their health and safety, and 72% stated they were verbally, physically, or sexually assaulted on the job. In regard to quality, only 30% of nurses felt the quality of care in their unit was excellent; however, nurse managers, being the optimists that they are, reported higher at 41%. Satisfaction took a nosedive especially in units where HWEs were not implemented. Only 34% of these nurses felt satisfied with their job, and 67% intend on leaving their employer in the next 3 years. Thirty percent of nurses would recommend their unit, and 20% would recommend their employer to others. During the last survey in 2018, 62% of nurses were very satisfied with being a nurse, but, sadly, this dropped to 40% in 2021. Of note, Beacon units did perform higher in most reported areas despite the hardships of COVID-19.

Nurses are the foundation supporting our plan of care, patient outcomes, and patient advocacy. Improving the nurse work environment benefits the entire care team and, most importantly, patient outcomes. AACN recommendations to promote an HWE would require systems to create environments where work is respected and honored, improve communication where a nursing voice is heard in regard to patient care decision making, provide staffing levels that are both appropriate and skilled, and ensure nurses feel valued. As part of the care team, we can hear our nurses and advocate for them. We can have conversations with administration regarding creating HWEs and striving for Beacon status. We can engage nurses in policy development that affects their unit. And, we can stop showing nurses how valuable they are with pizza and give them more meaningful feedback instead. In the 2021 survey, nurses reported positive feedback from patients and families was more meaningful to them than free meals. Encourage your patients and families to give that needed feedback. We could all be better stewards of the nursing profession and starting a conversation about HWEs is a great place to start.

If you’ve worked in the ICU then you’ve worked with nurses and, if you’re lucky, you’ve worked with some great ones. Working in multiple units, you may have noticed some differences unit to unit in the dynamics of efficiency, staff retention, and interprofessional dynamics among nurses. Or as the kids would say nowadays, the “vibe” of the unit. The American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN) has been studying the Nurse Work Environment since 2005 with the goal of promoting and improving a Healthy Work Environment (HWE).

There are six standards for an HWE according to the AACN, which include: Skilled Communication, True Collaboration, Effective Decision Making, Appropriate Staffing, Meaningful Recognition, and Authentic Leadership. Other than happy nurses, why is an HWE important? Multiple studies have supported that HWEs are associated with high patient satisfaction scores, shorter hospitalization time, increased patient safety, and reduction in adverse events and mortality. Hospitals that get this right can earn the Beacon Award of Excellence, which recognizes units that meet the practices of HWE.

In October 2022, the AACN released its 2021 Nurse Work Environments Status Report earlier than planned to assess how the public health crisis associated with COVID-19 has affected nurses and their work environment. Unsurprisingly, the results were dissatisfactory; 9,335 nurses from 50 states participated. Starting with the worse score, appropriate staffing, only 20% reported having appropriate and skilled staffing at least 75% of the time in 2021. That is the lowest recorded report, even lower than it was during the 2006 nursing shortage.

Less than 50% felt their organization valued their health and safety, and 72% stated they were verbally, physically, or sexually assaulted on the job. In regard to quality, only 30% of nurses felt the quality of care in their unit was excellent; however, nurse managers, being the optimists that they are, reported higher at 41%. Satisfaction took a nosedive especially in units where HWEs were not implemented. Only 34% of these nurses felt satisfied with their job, and 67% intend on leaving their employer in the next 3 years. Thirty percent of nurses would recommend their unit, and 20% would recommend their employer to others. During the last survey in 2018, 62% of nurses were very satisfied with being a nurse, but, sadly, this dropped to 40% in 2021. Of note, Beacon units did perform higher in most reported areas despite the hardships of COVID-19.

Nurses are the foundation supporting our plan of care, patient outcomes, and patient advocacy. Improving the nurse work environment benefits the entire care team and, most importantly, patient outcomes. AACN recommendations to promote an HWE would require systems to create environments where work is respected and honored, improve communication where a nursing voice is heard in regard to patient care decision making, provide staffing levels that are both appropriate and skilled, and ensure nurses feel valued. As part of the care team, we can hear our nurses and advocate for them. We can have conversations with administration regarding creating HWEs and striving for Beacon status. We can engage nurses in policy development that affects their unit. And, we can stop showing nurses how valuable they are with pizza and give them more meaningful feedback instead. In the 2021 survey, nurses reported positive feedback from patients and families was more meaningful to them than free meals. Encourage your patients and families to give that needed feedback. We could all be better stewards of the nursing profession and starting a conversation about HWEs is a great place to start.

If you’ve worked in the ICU then you’ve worked with nurses and, if you’re lucky, you’ve worked with some great ones. Working in multiple units, you may have noticed some differences unit to unit in the dynamics of efficiency, staff retention, and interprofessional dynamics among nurses. Or as the kids would say nowadays, the “vibe” of the unit. The American Association of Critical-Care Nurses (AACN) has been studying the Nurse Work Environment since 2005 with the goal of promoting and improving a Healthy Work Environment (HWE).

There are six standards for an HWE according to the AACN, which include: Skilled Communication, True Collaboration, Effective Decision Making, Appropriate Staffing, Meaningful Recognition, and Authentic Leadership. Other than happy nurses, why is an HWE important? Multiple studies have supported that HWEs are associated with high patient satisfaction scores, shorter hospitalization time, increased patient safety, and reduction in adverse events and mortality. Hospitals that get this right can earn the Beacon Award of Excellence, which recognizes units that meet the practices of HWE.

In October 2022, the AACN released its 2021 Nurse Work Environments Status Report earlier than planned to assess how the public health crisis associated with COVID-19 has affected nurses and their work environment. Unsurprisingly, the results were dissatisfactory; 9,335 nurses from 50 states participated. Starting with the worse score, appropriate staffing, only 20% reported having appropriate and skilled staffing at least 75% of the time in 2021. That is the lowest recorded report, even lower than it was during the 2006 nursing shortage.

Less than 50% felt their organization valued their health and safety, and 72% stated they were verbally, physically, or sexually assaulted on the job. In regard to quality, only 30% of nurses felt the quality of care in their unit was excellent; however, nurse managers, being the optimists that they are, reported higher at 41%. Satisfaction took a nosedive especially in units where HWEs were not implemented. Only 34% of these nurses felt satisfied with their job, and 67% intend on leaving their employer in the next 3 years. Thirty percent of nurses would recommend their unit, and 20% would recommend their employer to others. During the last survey in 2018, 62% of nurses were very satisfied with being a nurse, but, sadly, this dropped to 40% in 2021. Of note, Beacon units did perform higher in most reported areas despite the hardships of COVID-19.

Nurses are the foundation supporting our plan of care, patient outcomes, and patient advocacy. Improving the nurse work environment benefits the entire care team and, most importantly, patient outcomes. AACN recommendations to promote an HWE would require systems to create environments where work is respected and honored, improve communication where a nursing voice is heard in regard to patient care decision making, provide staffing levels that are both appropriate and skilled, and ensure nurses feel valued. As part of the care team, we can hear our nurses and advocate for them. We can have conversations with administration regarding creating HWEs and striving for Beacon status. We can engage nurses in policy development that affects their unit. And, we can stop showing nurses how valuable they are with pizza and give them more meaningful feedback instead. In the 2021 survey, nurses reported positive feedback from patients and families was more meaningful to them than free meals. Encourage your patients and families to give that needed feedback. We could all be better stewards of the nursing profession and starting a conversation about HWEs is a great place to start.

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. Had I known when I penned my last column for the November 2022 issue of CHEST Physician that I’d get one more crack at making a final impression, I might have saved some of my leadership tips for this month, but c’est la vie. Being the Past President is a pretty sweet gig. I liken it to being a grandparent; you get to have lots of fun, and then get to go home at the end of the day and leave the cleanup to someone else. Not that I left too much to clean up, but I have no doubt that President Doreen Addrizzo-Harris is ready to handle whatever challenges 2023 throws at her.

Today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the Earth. Serving as CHEST President was an incredible privilege. The Nashville meeting seems like it was just yesterday, as does the experience of watching the work of the Scientific Program Committee, led by the amazing Dr. Subani Chandra, that put together our most ambitious annual meeting to date. And, it superseded all our expectations. It was wonderful to be back in person for the first time in 3 years, and it was even better to have the chance to share the experience with all of you who joined us. While I have every expectation that our Hawai’i meeting this October will be even bigger and better, this was the personal highlight of the year for me. There were so many other fantastic things I got to experience that it is difficult to know where to start. Sometimes the whole year seems like it went by so fast; I don’t know where we’ve been, and I’ve just been there! As a component of our organizational strategy, CHEST has been examining ways in which we can work more closely with our society partners, both domestically and abroad. During my tenure, I had the pleasure of meeting with representatives from many organizations, including the American Thoracic Society, the Canadian Thoracic Society, the European Respiratory Society, the Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia, the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Indian Chest Society, the Asociación Latinoamericana de Tórax, and the Turkish Respiratory Society. Many of these groups are struggling with the same challenges as CHEST, including how best to conduct academic meetings in the context of an increasingly online world, how to better engage our junior colleagues, who may not see the value of membership in a professional society, and how to better integrate our efforts toward improving worldwide lung health. In the coming months and years, I expect that you will see the products of these international collaborations, which I hope will be the springboard from which we can mutually develop more impactful public health and educational initiatives.

CHEST

The year was certainly not without challenges; there were some definite struggles in 2022. The Networks reorganization created confusion for some, despite diligent planning and communication. Despite the challenges, however, the change ultimately permitted us to offer more leadership opportunities to our members than existed previously and created new a home for many different specialists among our membership. We have heard from some of you that the elimination of certain networks led you to feel that CHEST did not adequately value your areas of professional focus. And while we hear you and are working to develop new mechanisms for networking at the annual meeting and throughout the year, the addition of our new sections also allows us to highlight disease states and content domains that previously did not have a clear home in our prior Network structure. CHEST is still learning how to best include and engage groups who have been historically disenfranchised, for whom we want to create new opportunities. The 2021 CHEST President Dr. Steve Simpson identified this as a priority for his presidential year, and we have made strides in the area of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

We launched the First 5 Minutes^® initiative to help clinicians build trust with their patients earlier and more effectively. And CHEST hired the organization’s first Director of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB), who has already built our first Value-Setting Work Group and started incorporating DEIB principles into our organizational decision-making. Naively, as we began the year, I was hoping we would make more progress in 2022 than we did. The old dreams were good dreams; they didn’t work out, but I’m glad I had them.

So although there is a great deal more work to do, I know that this is a priority for President Addrizzo-Harris in 2023, and we will continue this positive momentum in the months and years to come. I will retire now to my couch of perpetual indulgence. Yes, I’ve still got the rest of 2023 as an active member of the Board. And, while it has been a great experience, I am looking forward a bit to winding down and letting the fresh faces guide the future of this wonderful organization. Of course, I couldn’t go out without another contest (with an opportunity to win free registration to CHEST 2023!). Five of the sentences in this document come directly from movies; identify the five different sources of these quotes (the movie titles alone are sufficient) and email them to us at contest@chestnet.org. All correct responses received by May 15, 2023, will be entered into a drawing for the prize. Don’t know if there will be a next time, but ‘til then.


David

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. Had I known when I penned my last column for the November 2022 issue of CHEST Physician that I’d get one more crack at making a final impression, I might have saved some of my leadership tips for this month, but c’est la vie. Being the Past President is a pretty sweet gig. I liken it to being a grandparent; you get to have lots of fun, and then get to go home at the end of the day and leave the cleanup to someone else. Not that I left too much to clean up, but I have no doubt that President Doreen Addrizzo-Harris is ready to handle whatever challenges 2023 throws at her.

Today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the Earth. Serving as CHEST President was an incredible privilege. The Nashville meeting seems like it was just yesterday, as does the experience of watching the work of the Scientific Program Committee, led by the amazing Dr. Subani Chandra, that put together our most ambitious annual meeting to date. And, it superseded all our expectations. It was wonderful to be back in person for the first time in 3 years, and it was even better to have the chance to share the experience with all of you who joined us. While I have every expectation that our Hawai’i meeting this October will be even bigger and better, this was the personal highlight of the year for me. There were so many other fantastic things I got to experience that it is difficult to know where to start. Sometimes the whole year seems like it went by so fast; I don’t know where we’ve been, and I’ve just been there! As a component of our organizational strategy, CHEST has been examining ways in which we can work more closely with our society partners, both domestically and abroad. During my tenure, I had the pleasure of meeting with representatives from many organizations, including the American Thoracic Society, the Canadian Thoracic Society, the European Respiratory Society, the Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia, the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Indian Chest Society, the Asociación Latinoamericana de Tórax, and the Turkish Respiratory Society. Many of these groups are struggling with the same challenges as CHEST, including how best to conduct academic meetings in the context of an increasingly online world, how to better engage our junior colleagues, who may not see the value of membership in a professional society, and how to better integrate our efforts toward improving worldwide lung health. In the coming months and years, I expect that you will see the products of these international collaborations, which I hope will be the springboard from which we can mutually develop more impactful public health and educational initiatives.

CHEST

The year was certainly not without challenges; there were some definite struggles in 2022. The Networks reorganization created confusion for some, despite diligent planning and communication. Despite the challenges, however, the change ultimately permitted us to offer more leadership opportunities to our members than existed previously and created new a home for many different specialists among our membership. We have heard from some of you that the elimination of certain networks led you to feel that CHEST did not adequately value your areas of professional focus. And while we hear you and are working to develop new mechanisms for networking at the annual meeting and throughout the year, the addition of our new sections also allows us to highlight disease states and content domains that previously did not have a clear home in our prior Network structure. CHEST is still learning how to best include and engage groups who have been historically disenfranchised, for whom we want to create new opportunities. The 2021 CHEST President Dr. Steve Simpson identified this as a priority for his presidential year, and we have made strides in the area of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

We launched the First 5 Minutes^® initiative to help clinicians build trust with their patients earlier and more effectively. And CHEST hired the organization’s first Director of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB), who has already built our first Value-Setting Work Group and started incorporating DEIB principles into our organizational decision-making. Naively, as we began the year, I was hoping we would make more progress in 2022 than we did. The old dreams were good dreams; they didn’t work out, but I’m glad I had them.

So although there is a great deal more work to do, I know that this is a priority for President Addrizzo-Harris in 2023, and we will continue this positive momentum in the months and years to come. I will retire now to my couch of perpetual indulgence. Yes, I’ve still got the rest of 2023 as an active member of the Board. And, while it has been a great experience, I am looking forward a bit to winding down and letting the fresh faces guide the future of this wonderful organization. Of course, I couldn’t go out without another contest (with an opportunity to win free registration to CHEST 2023!). Five of the sentences in this document come directly from movies; identify the five different sources of these quotes (the movie titles alone are sufficient) and email them to us at contest@chestnet.org. All correct responses received by May 15, 2023, will be entered into a drawing for the prize. Don’t know if there will be a next time, but ‘til then.


David

Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in. Had I known when I penned my last column for the November 2022 issue of CHEST Physician that I’d get one more crack at making a final impression, I might have saved some of my leadership tips for this month, but c’est la vie. Being the Past President is a pretty sweet gig. I liken it to being a grandparent; you get to have lots of fun, and then get to go home at the end of the day and leave the cleanup to someone else. Not that I left too much to clean up, but I have no doubt that President Doreen Addrizzo-Harris is ready to handle whatever challenges 2023 throws at her.

Today, I consider myself the luckiest man on the face of the Earth. Serving as CHEST President was an incredible privilege. The Nashville meeting seems like it was just yesterday, as does the experience of watching the work of the Scientific Program Committee, led by the amazing Dr. Subani Chandra, that put together our most ambitious annual meeting to date. And, it superseded all our expectations. It was wonderful to be back in person for the first time in 3 years, and it was even better to have the chance to share the experience with all of you who joined us. While I have every expectation that our Hawai’i meeting this October will be even bigger and better, this was the personal highlight of the year for me. There were so many other fantastic things I got to experience that it is difficult to know where to start. Sometimes the whole year seems like it went by so fast; I don’t know where we’ve been, and I’ve just been there! As a component of our organizational strategy, CHEST has been examining ways in which we can work more closely with our society partners, both domestically and abroad. During my tenure, I had the pleasure of meeting with representatives from many organizations, including the American Thoracic Society, the Canadian Thoracic Society, the European Respiratory Society, the Sociedade Brasileira de Pneumologia e Tisiologia, the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand, the Indian Chest Society, the Asociación Latinoamericana de Tórax, and the Turkish Respiratory Society. Many of these groups are struggling with the same challenges as CHEST, including how best to conduct academic meetings in the context of an increasingly online world, how to better engage our junior colleagues, who may not see the value of membership in a professional society, and how to better integrate our efforts toward improving worldwide lung health. In the coming months and years, I expect that you will see the products of these international collaborations, which I hope will be the springboard from which we can mutually develop more impactful public health and educational initiatives.

CHEST

The year was certainly not without challenges; there were some definite struggles in 2022. The Networks reorganization created confusion for some, despite diligent planning and communication. Despite the challenges, however, the change ultimately permitted us to offer more leadership opportunities to our members than existed previously and created new a home for many different specialists among our membership. We have heard from some of you that the elimination of certain networks led you to feel that CHEST did not adequately value your areas of professional focus. And while we hear you and are working to develop new mechanisms for networking at the annual meeting and throughout the year, the addition of our new sections also allows us to highlight disease states and content domains that previously did not have a clear home in our prior Network structure. CHEST is still learning how to best include and engage groups who have been historically disenfranchised, for whom we want to create new opportunities. The 2021 CHEST President Dr. Steve Simpson identified this as a priority for his presidential year, and we have made strides in the area of diversity, equity, and inclusion.

We launched the First 5 Minutes^® initiative to help clinicians build trust with their patients earlier and more effectively. And CHEST hired the organization’s first Director of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging (DEIB), who has already built our first Value-Setting Work Group and started incorporating DEIB principles into our organizational decision-making. Naively, as we began the year, I was hoping we would make more progress in 2022 than we did. The old dreams were good dreams; they didn’t work out, but I’m glad I had them.

So although there is a great deal more work to do, I know that this is a priority for President Addrizzo-Harris in 2023, and we will continue this positive momentum in the months and years to come. I will retire now to my couch of perpetual indulgence. Yes, I’ve still got the rest of 2023 as an active member of the Board. And, while it has been a great experience, I am looking forward a bit to winding down and letting the fresh faces guide the future of this wonderful organization. Of course, I couldn’t go out without another contest (with an opportunity to win free registration to CHEST 2023!). Five of the sentences in this document come directly from movies; identify the five different sources of these quotes (the movie titles alone are sufficient) and email them to us at contest@chestnet.org. All correct responses received by May 15, 2023, will be entered into a drawing for the prize. Don’t know if there will be a next time, but ‘til then.


David

Planning for the CHEST Annual Meeting is no small undertaking and begins shortly after the past year’s conference concludes – if not even earlier. Each year, the members of the Scientific Program Committee are tasked with receiving hundreds of submissions and selecting the most clinically compelling ideas to build a meeting program that is both broad in scope, yet also tailored to each specific area of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine.

In mid-February, the CHEST 2023 program began to take shape as the members of the committee met at CHEST Headquarters in Glenview, Illinois, to critically review each and every session. By the end of the 2-day meeting, barring last minute changes, the program was all but completed, and Hawai’i began to feel very close.

Scenic images of the destination were projected onto the walls, and the room was brimming with excitement for a CHEST meeting unlike any other. Chair of the CHEST Annual Meeting 2023, Aneesa Das, MD, FCCP, focused heavily on the educational experience the meeting will offer while also embracing the culture of Hawai’i. With two representatives from the state, CHEST 2023 looks to respectfully incorporate Hawaiian customs at every opportunity to supplement the education.

Chair of the Interstitial Lung Disease and Transplant curriculum, Debbie Levine, MD, MS, FCCP, shared that, at least for her section, it was likely the irresistible destination that contributed to the submissions. “Because this meeting is in Hawai’i, we received the most submissions our group has ever seen,” said Dr. Levine. “And these submissions were top notch – we had really excellent topics to pick from, so this is going to be our best curriculum yet. This is likely true for the other groups, too, so anyone who goes to CHEST 2023 in Hawai’i will get the best of the best in the most beautiful place in the world.”

 

Breadth of coverage

With something for everyone in chest medicine, the CHEST 2023 meeting will feature hundreds of sessions covering eight curriculum groups:

• Critical Care
• Interdisciplinary/Practice Operations/Education
• Cardiovascular/Pulmonary Vascular Disease
• Interstitial Lung Disease/Transplant
• Lung Cancer/Interventional Pulmonary/Radiology
• Chest Infections/Disaster Medicine/Systemic Disease
• Airways Disease
• Sleep

During the planning meeting, each of the curriculum chairs presented their slate to ensure diversity of content, panelist characteristics – including clinical backgrounds – and something for every level of clinician: from student to accomplished professional.

Chair of the Sleep Medicine curriculum, Carolyn D’Ambrosio, MD, MS, FCCP, said, “Our curriculum covers the typical topics like obstructive sleep apnea, but we also have sessions on difficult titrations in the sleep laboratory and how to work with noninvasive ventilation in the outpatient setting. Anyone who specializes in sleep medicine should come to CHEST 2023 because we have something for every piece of practice.”
 

The CHEST atmosphere

Chair of the Airway Disorders curriculum, Marcos Restrepo, MD, PhD, FCCP, encouraged attendees who may not be involved with the college saying, “CHEST is very welcoming to everyone, no matter what the level of knowledge or experience is; it is a very collegial group. That’s what first attracted me to CHEST from the beginning – how nice everyone was. I think this is a fantastic opportunity for all of us and particularly for those that are willing to really be part of something. And this is something really special.” In addition to the slate of programming, CHEST will host master courses before and after the annual meeting. Requiring advance registration, these will include a wide variety of problem-based learning scenarios taught by renowned experts in the field.

Returning to Hawai’i for the first time since 2011, this year’s CHEST Annual Meeting is expected to offer an unmatched educational lineup and countless other opportunities for career advancement. When asked why they are looking forward to the meeting, Chair of the Pulmonary Vascular/Cardiovascular Disease curriculum, Jean Elwing, MD, FCCP, said, “There are so many reasons I am looking forward to CHEST 2023 – I want to see my friends. I want to network. And I want to learn together in these interactive, unique ways that only CHEST can offer. From the pro/con debates to the interactive sessions we have planned in our curriculum, anyone who attends will have a great learning experience and have fun doing it. I can’t wait to see everyone there!”

Visit www.chestnet.org/Learning-and-Events/Events/CHEST-Annual-Meeting to sign up for updates about CHEST 2023 and to apply to be a moderator.

Planning for the CHEST Annual Meeting is no small undertaking and begins shortly after the past year’s conference concludes – if not even earlier. Each year, the members of the Scientific Program Committee are tasked with receiving hundreds of submissions and selecting the most clinically compelling ideas to build a meeting program that is both broad in scope, yet also tailored to each specific area of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine.

In mid-February, the CHEST 2023 program began to take shape as the members of the committee met at CHEST Headquarters in Glenview, Illinois, to critically review each and every session. By the end of the 2-day meeting, barring last minute changes, the program was all but completed, and Hawai’i began to feel very close.

Scenic images of the destination were projected onto the walls, and the room was brimming with excitement for a CHEST meeting unlike any other. Chair of the CHEST Annual Meeting 2023, Aneesa Das, MD, FCCP, focused heavily on the educational experience the meeting will offer while also embracing the culture of Hawai’i. With two representatives from the state, CHEST 2023 looks to respectfully incorporate Hawaiian customs at every opportunity to supplement the education.

Chair of the Interstitial Lung Disease and Transplant curriculum, Debbie Levine, MD, MS, FCCP, shared that, at least for her section, it was likely the irresistible destination that contributed to the submissions. “Because this meeting is in Hawai’i, we received the most submissions our group has ever seen,” said Dr. Levine. “And these submissions were top notch – we had really excellent topics to pick from, so this is going to be our best curriculum yet. This is likely true for the other groups, too, so anyone who goes to CHEST 2023 in Hawai’i will get the best of the best in the most beautiful place in the world.”

 

Breadth of coverage

With something for everyone in chest medicine, the CHEST 2023 meeting will feature hundreds of sessions covering eight curriculum groups:

• Critical Care
• Interdisciplinary/Practice Operations/Education
• Cardiovascular/Pulmonary Vascular Disease
• Interstitial Lung Disease/Transplant
• Lung Cancer/Interventional Pulmonary/Radiology
• Chest Infections/Disaster Medicine/Systemic Disease
• Airways Disease
• Sleep

During the planning meeting, each of the curriculum chairs presented their slate to ensure diversity of content, panelist characteristics – including clinical backgrounds – and something for every level of clinician: from student to accomplished professional.

Chair of the Sleep Medicine curriculum, Carolyn D’Ambrosio, MD, MS, FCCP, said, “Our curriculum covers the typical topics like obstructive sleep apnea, but we also have sessions on difficult titrations in the sleep laboratory and how to work with noninvasive ventilation in the outpatient setting. Anyone who specializes in sleep medicine should come to CHEST 2023 because we have something for every piece of practice.”
 

The CHEST atmosphere

Chair of the Airway Disorders curriculum, Marcos Restrepo, MD, PhD, FCCP, encouraged attendees who may not be involved with the college saying, “CHEST is very welcoming to everyone, no matter what the level of knowledge or experience is; it is a very collegial group. That’s what first attracted me to CHEST from the beginning – how nice everyone was. I think this is a fantastic opportunity for all of us and particularly for those that are willing to really be part of something. And this is something really special.” In addition to the slate of programming, CHEST will host master courses before and after the annual meeting. Requiring advance registration, these will include a wide variety of problem-based learning scenarios taught by renowned experts in the field.

Returning to Hawai’i for the first time since 2011, this year’s CHEST Annual Meeting is expected to offer an unmatched educational lineup and countless other opportunities for career advancement. When asked why they are looking forward to the meeting, Chair of the Pulmonary Vascular/Cardiovascular Disease curriculum, Jean Elwing, MD, FCCP, said, “There are so many reasons I am looking forward to CHEST 2023 – I want to see my friends. I want to network. And I want to learn together in these interactive, unique ways that only CHEST can offer. From the pro/con debates to the interactive sessions we have planned in our curriculum, anyone who attends will have a great learning experience and have fun doing it. I can’t wait to see everyone there!”

Visit www.chestnet.org/Learning-and-Events/Events/CHEST-Annual-Meeting to sign up for updates about CHEST 2023 and to apply to be a moderator.

Planning for the CHEST Annual Meeting is no small undertaking and begins shortly after the past year’s conference concludes – if not even earlier. Each year, the members of the Scientific Program Committee are tasked with receiving hundreds of submissions and selecting the most clinically compelling ideas to build a meeting program that is both broad in scope, yet also tailored to each specific area of pulmonary, critical care, and sleep medicine.

In mid-February, the CHEST 2023 program began to take shape as the members of the committee met at CHEST Headquarters in Glenview, Illinois, to critically review each and every session. By the end of the 2-day meeting, barring last minute changes, the program was all but completed, and Hawai’i began to feel very close.

Scenic images of the destination were projected onto the walls, and the room was brimming with excitement for a CHEST meeting unlike any other. Chair of the CHEST Annual Meeting 2023, Aneesa Das, MD, FCCP, focused heavily on the educational experience the meeting will offer while also embracing the culture of Hawai’i. With two representatives from the state, CHEST 2023 looks to respectfully incorporate Hawaiian customs at every opportunity to supplement the education.

Chair of the Interstitial Lung Disease and Transplant curriculum, Debbie Levine, MD, MS, FCCP, shared that, at least for her section, it was likely the irresistible destination that contributed to the submissions. “Because this meeting is in Hawai’i, we received the most submissions our group has ever seen,” said Dr. Levine. “And these submissions were top notch – we had really excellent topics to pick from, so this is going to be our best curriculum yet. This is likely true for the other groups, too, so anyone who goes to CHEST 2023 in Hawai’i will get the best of the best in the most beautiful place in the world.”

 

Breadth of coverage

With something for everyone in chest medicine, the CHEST 2023 meeting will feature hundreds of sessions covering eight curriculum groups:

• Critical Care
• Interdisciplinary/Practice Operations/Education
• Cardiovascular/Pulmonary Vascular Disease
• Interstitial Lung Disease/Transplant
• Lung Cancer/Interventional Pulmonary/Radiology
• Chest Infections/Disaster Medicine/Systemic Disease
• Airways Disease
• Sleep

During the planning meeting, each of the curriculum chairs presented their slate to ensure diversity of content, panelist characteristics – including clinical backgrounds – and something for every level of clinician: from student to accomplished professional.

Chair of the Sleep Medicine curriculum, Carolyn D’Ambrosio, MD, MS, FCCP, said, “Our curriculum covers the typical topics like obstructive sleep apnea, but we also have sessions on difficult titrations in the sleep laboratory and how to work with noninvasive ventilation in the outpatient setting. Anyone who specializes in sleep medicine should come to CHEST 2023 because we have something for every piece of practice.”
 

The CHEST atmosphere

Chair of the Airway Disorders curriculum, Marcos Restrepo, MD, PhD, FCCP, encouraged attendees who may not be involved with the college saying, “CHEST is very welcoming to everyone, no matter what the level of knowledge or experience is; it is a very collegial group. That’s what first attracted me to CHEST from the beginning – how nice everyone was. I think this is a fantastic opportunity for all of us and particularly for those that are willing to really be part of something. And this is something really special.” In addition to the slate of programming, CHEST will host master courses before and after the annual meeting. Requiring advance registration, these will include a wide variety of problem-based learning scenarios taught by renowned experts in the field.

Returning to Hawai’i for the first time since 2011, this year’s CHEST Annual Meeting is expected to offer an unmatched educational lineup and countless other opportunities for career advancement. When asked why they are looking forward to the meeting, Chair of the Pulmonary Vascular/Cardiovascular Disease curriculum, Jean Elwing, MD, FCCP, said, “There are so many reasons I am looking forward to CHEST 2023 – I want to see my friends. I want to network. And I want to learn together in these interactive, unique ways that only CHEST can offer. From the pro/con debates to the interactive sessions we have planned in our curriculum, anyone who attends will have a great learning experience and have fun doing it. I can’t wait to see everyone there!”

Visit www.chestnet.org/Learning-and-Events/Events/CHEST-Annual-Meeting to sign up for updates about CHEST 2023 and to apply to be a moderator.

The overnight shift in the MCU began as it does for many intensivists, by hearing about ED admissions, transfers from outside hospitals, sick floor patients, and high-risk patients in the MICU. Earlier in the day, the MICU team had admitted a 39-year-old woman with a severe asthma attack that required endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation in the ED for hypercarbic respiratory failure. After intubation, she had no audible air movement on chest exam, severe hypercarbic respiratory acidosis determined by an arterial blood gas, a clear chest radiograph, and negative findings on a respiratory viral panel. Her family said that she had run out of her steroid inhaler a month earlier and could not afford a refill. She had been using increasing amounts of albuterol over the past week before developing severe shortness of breath on the day of admission. The ED and MICU teams aggressively treated her with high-dose inhaled albuterol, ipratropium, and IV magnesium sulfate for bronchodilation; methylprednisolone for airway inflammation; and continuous ketamine for sedation, analgesia, and bronchodilation (Rehder KJ, et al. Respir Care. 2017;62[6]:849). Her airway pressures continued to be high despite using lung protective ventilation, so she was shifted to a permissive hypercapnia ventilation strategy using neuromuscular blockade, deep sedation, and low minute-ventilation (Laher AE, et al. J Intensive Care Med. 2018;33[9]:491).

CHEST

Two hours into the shift, the bedside nurse noted that the patient had become hypotensive. Her ventilator pressures remained stable with peak inspiratory pressures of 38-42 cm H₂O, plateau pressures of 28-30 cm H₂O, auto-positive end-expiratory pressure (auto-PEEP) of 10-12 cm H₂O, and fractional inspiratory oxygen (FiO₂) of 40%. A repeat chest radiograph showed no signs of barotrauma, but arterial blood gas values showed severe respiratory acidosis with a pH of 7.05 and a PCO₂ > 100 mm Hg. Her condition stabilized when she received a continuous infusion of bicarbonate to control her acidosis and low-dose IV norepinephrine for blood pressure control. It was at that moment that the bedside nurse astutely asked whether we should consider starting ECMO for the patient, as coauthor Dr. Arun Kannappan had done for a similar patient with asthma a month earlier. Dr. Vandivier notes, “My first response was that ECMO was not needed, because our patient had stabilized, and I had taken care of many patients like this in the past. But as I considered the situation more carefully, it was clear that any further decompensation could put our patient’s life at risk by not leaving enough time to start ECMO in a controlled setting. In short, my ‘traditional’ approach left little room for error in a patient with high ventilator pressures and hemodynamic instability.”

CHEST

ECMO is a technique used to add oxygen or remove CO₂ from the blood of people with different forms of respiratory failure (Fan E, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2016;2:712) that was first used by Hill and colleagues in 1966 for trauma-induced ARDS (Hill JD, et al. N Engl J Med. 1972;286:629). The ECMO circuit pumps blood from the venous system into an oxygenator that adds oxygen and removes CO₂ before blood is returned to either the venous or arterial circulation (Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:712). Venovenous ECMO (vvECMO) is used in clinical scenarios where only oxygenation and/or CO₂ removal is needed, whereas venoarterial ECMO (vaECMO) is reserved for situations where additional hemodynamic support is necessary. ECMO is traditionally thought of as a means to increase blood oxygenation, but it is less widely appreciated that ECMO is particularly effective at removing blood CO₂. In addition to ECMO helping to normalize oxygenation or eliminate CO₂, it can also be used to lower tidal volumes, decrease airway pressures, and allow “lungs to rest” with the goal of avoiding ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI).

CHEST

Standing at the bedside, it seemed to the authors that it was the right time to think about instituting a salvage therapy. But was there evidence that ECMO could improve survival? Were there clear guidelines for when to initiate ECMO, and was ECMO more effective than other salvage therapies such as inhaled volatile anesthetics?

Since McDonnell and colleagues first described the use of ECMO for a severe asthma exacerbation in 1981 (Ann Thoracic Surg. 1981;31[2]:171), about 95 articles have been published. Other than two registry studies and a recent epidemiologic study, all of these publications were case reports, case series, and reviews. Mikkelsen and colleagues (ASAIO J. 2009;55[1]:47) performed a retrospective, cohort study using the International Extracorporeal Life Support (ECLS) Organization Registry to determine whether ECMO use for status asthmaticus was associated with greater survival than the use of ECMO for other causes of respiratory failure. From 1986 through 2006, a total of 2,127 cases of respiratory failure were identified that required ECMO, including 27 for status asthmaticus and 1,233 for other causes. Their analysis showed that 83.3% of asthmatics treated with ECMO survived to hospital discharge, compared with 50.8% of people treated with ECMO for respiratory failure not due to asthma, with an odds ratio (OR) of 4.86 favoring survival of asthmatics (OR = 4.86; 95% CI, 1.65-14.31, P = .004).

Yeo and colleagues (Yeo HJ, et al. Critical Care. 2017;21:297) also used the ECLS Organization Registry to measure survival to hospital discharge, complications, and clinical factors associated with in-hospital mortality for asthmatics treated with ECMO. They included 272 people treated with ECMO for asthma between 1992 and 2016, after excluding people treated with ECMO for cardiopulmonary resuscitation or cardiac dysfunction. ECMO was associated with improvements in ventilator mechanics, including a reduction in respiratory rate, FiO₂, peak inspiratory pressure, mean airway pressure, and driving pressure. Use of ECMO for status asthmaticus was also associated with an 83.5% survival to hospital discharge, similar to the study by Mikkelsen and colleagues. Hemorrhage, the most common complication, occurred in roughly a quarter of people treated with ECMO. In the multivariate analysis, age, bleeding, pre-ECMO PEEP, post-ECMO FiO₂, and driving pressure were all associated with higher in-hospital mortality.

Although there are no formal criteria to guide use of ECMO for asthma exacerbations with respiratory failure, a number of physicians and a physician organization have recommended that ECMO be considered for persistently high ventilator pressures, uncontrolled respiratory acidosis, or hemodynamic instability. Because our patient qualified for ECMO based on all three suggested criteria, we consulted cardiac surgery who quickly started her on vvECMO. She remained on ECMO for 4 days until she was decannulated, extubated, and discharged home.

Despite this positive outcome, the lack of a high-quality, controlled study to help guide our decision was surprising given the ability of ECMO to efficiently remove CO₂ and to decrease ventilator pressures. The lack of guidance prompted us to perform a retrospective, epidemiologic cohort study to determine whether treatment with ECMO for asthma exacerbations with respiratory failure was associated with reduced mortality, compared with people treated without ECMO (Zakrajsek JK, Chest. 2023;163[1]:38). The study included 13,714 people admitted to an ECMO-capable hospital with respiratory failure that required invasive ventilation because of an asthma exacerbation between 2010 and 2020, of which 127 were treated with ECMO and 13,587 were not. During this period, use of ECMO as a salvage therapy for severe asthma exacerbations was a rare event, but it became more common over time. With the limitation that 40% of asthma patients were transferred from an outside hospital, 74% were started on ECMO in the first 2 hospital days, and 94% were started within the first week of hospitalization. Once started, ECMO was continued for a median of 1.0 day and range of 1-49 days. Hospital mortality was 14.6% in the ECMO group versus 26.2% in the no ECMO group, which equated to an 11.6% absolute risk reduction (P = 0.03) and 52% relative risk reduction (P = 0.04) in mortality. ECMO was associated with hospital costs that were $114,000 higher per patient, compared with the no ECMO group, but did not affect intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, or time on invasive mechanical ventilation.

We were pleased that our patient had a good outcome, and were reassured by our study results. But we were left to wonder whether ECMO really was the best salvage therapy for asthma exacerbations with respiratory failure, and if it was initiated for the right indications at the best time. These are important treatment considerations that take on new urgency given that physicians are increasingly looking to ECMO as a salvage therapy for refractory asthma, and the recent FDA approval of low-flow, extracorporeal CO₂ removal systems that could make CO₂ removal a more available, and perhaps less expensive, strategy. Despite promising epidemiological data, it will be important that these questions are answered with well-designed clinical trials so that physicians can be armed with the knowledge needed to navigate complex clinical scenarios, and ultimately to prevent unfortunate deaths from a reversible disease.

The overnight shift in the MCU began as it does for many intensivists, by hearing about ED admissions, transfers from outside hospitals, sick floor patients, and high-risk patients in the MICU. Earlier in the day, the MICU team had admitted a 39-year-old woman with a severe asthma attack that required endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation in the ED for hypercarbic respiratory failure. After intubation, she had no audible air movement on chest exam, severe hypercarbic respiratory acidosis determined by an arterial blood gas, a clear chest radiograph, and negative findings on a respiratory viral panel. Her family said that she had run out of her steroid inhaler a month earlier and could not afford a refill. She had been using increasing amounts of albuterol over the past week before developing severe shortness of breath on the day of admission. The ED and MICU teams aggressively treated her with high-dose inhaled albuterol, ipratropium, and IV magnesium sulfate for bronchodilation; methylprednisolone for airway inflammation; and continuous ketamine for sedation, analgesia, and bronchodilation (Rehder KJ, et al. Respir Care. 2017;62[6]:849). Her airway pressures continued to be high despite using lung protective ventilation, so she was shifted to a permissive hypercapnia ventilation strategy using neuromuscular blockade, deep sedation, and low minute-ventilation (Laher AE, et al. J Intensive Care Med. 2018;33[9]:491).

CHEST

Two hours into the shift, the bedside nurse noted that the patient had become hypotensive. Her ventilator pressures remained stable with peak inspiratory pressures of 38-42 cm H₂O, plateau pressures of 28-30 cm H₂O, auto-positive end-expiratory pressure (auto-PEEP) of 10-12 cm H₂O, and fractional inspiratory oxygen (FiO₂) of 40%. A repeat chest radiograph showed no signs of barotrauma, but arterial blood gas values showed severe respiratory acidosis with a pH of 7.05 and a PCO₂ > 100 mm Hg. Her condition stabilized when she received a continuous infusion of bicarbonate to control her acidosis and low-dose IV norepinephrine for blood pressure control. It was at that moment that the bedside nurse astutely asked whether we should consider starting ECMO for the patient, as coauthor Dr. Arun Kannappan had done for a similar patient with asthma a month earlier. Dr. Vandivier notes, “My first response was that ECMO was not needed, because our patient had stabilized, and I had taken care of many patients like this in the past. But as I considered the situation more carefully, it was clear that any further decompensation could put our patient’s life at risk by not leaving enough time to start ECMO in a controlled setting. In short, my ‘traditional’ approach left little room for error in a patient with high ventilator pressures and hemodynamic instability.”

CHEST

ECMO is a technique used to add oxygen or remove CO₂ from the blood of people with different forms of respiratory failure (Fan E, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2016;2:712) that was first used by Hill and colleagues in 1966 for trauma-induced ARDS (Hill JD, et al. N Engl J Med. 1972;286:629). The ECMO circuit pumps blood from the venous system into an oxygenator that adds oxygen and removes CO₂ before blood is returned to either the venous or arterial circulation (Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:712). Venovenous ECMO (vvECMO) is used in clinical scenarios where only oxygenation and/or CO₂ removal is needed, whereas venoarterial ECMO (vaECMO) is reserved for situations where additional hemodynamic support is necessary. ECMO is traditionally thought of as a means to increase blood oxygenation, but it is less widely appreciated that ECMO is particularly effective at removing blood CO₂. In addition to ECMO helping to normalize oxygenation or eliminate CO₂, it can also be used to lower tidal volumes, decrease airway pressures, and allow “lungs to rest” with the goal of avoiding ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI).

CHEST

Standing at the bedside, it seemed to the authors that it was the right time to think about instituting a salvage therapy. But was there evidence that ECMO could improve survival? Were there clear guidelines for when to initiate ECMO, and was ECMO more effective than other salvage therapies such as inhaled volatile anesthetics?

Since McDonnell and colleagues first described the use of ECMO for a severe asthma exacerbation in 1981 (Ann Thoracic Surg. 1981;31[2]:171), about 95 articles have been published. Other than two registry studies and a recent epidemiologic study, all of these publications were case reports, case series, and reviews. Mikkelsen and colleagues (ASAIO J. 2009;55[1]:47) performed a retrospective, cohort study using the International Extracorporeal Life Support (ECLS) Organization Registry to determine whether ECMO use for status asthmaticus was associated with greater survival than the use of ECMO for other causes of respiratory failure. From 1986 through 2006, a total of 2,127 cases of respiratory failure were identified that required ECMO, including 27 for status asthmaticus and 1,233 for other causes. Their analysis showed that 83.3% of asthmatics treated with ECMO survived to hospital discharge, compared with 50.8% of people treated with ECMO for respiratory failure not due to asthma, with an odds ratio (OR) of 4.86 favoring survival of asthmatics (OR = 4.86; 95% CI, 1.65-14.31, P = .004).

Yeo and colleagues (Yeo HJ, et al. Critical Care. 2017;21:297) also used the ECLS Organization Registry to measure survival to hospital discharge, complications, and clinical factors associated with in-hospital mortality for asthmatics treated with ECMO. They included 272 people treated with ECMO for asthma between 1992 and 2016, after excluding people treated with ECMO for cardiopulmonary resuscitation or cardiac dysfunction. ECMO was associated with improvements in ventilator mechanics, including a reduction in respiratory rate, FiO₂, peak inspiratory pressure, mean airway pressure, and driving pressure. Use of ECMO for status asthmaticus was also associated with an 83.5% survival to hospital discharge, similar to the study by Mikkelsen and colleagues. Hemorrhage, the most common complication, occurred in roughly a quarter of people treated with ECMO. In the multivariate analysis, age, bleeding, pre-ECMO PEEP, post-ECMO FiO₂, and driving pressure were all associated with higher in-hospital mortality.

Although there are no formal criteria to guide use of ECMO for asthma exacerbations with respiratory failure, a number of physicians and a physician organization have recommended that ECMO be considered for persistently high ventilator pressures, uncontrolled respiratory acidosis, or hemodynamic instability. Because our patient qualified for ECMO based on all three suggested criteria, we consulted cardiac surgery who quickly started her on vvECMO. She remained on ECMO for 4 days until she was decannulated, extubated, and discharged home.

Despite this positive outcome, the lack of a high-quality, controlled study to help guide our decision was surprising given the ability of ECMO to efficiently remove CO₂ and to decrease ventilator pressures. The lack of guidance prompted us to perform a retrospective, epidemiologic cohort study to determine whether treatment with ECMO for asthma exacerbations with respiratory failure was associated with reduced mortality, compared with people treated without ECMO (Zakrajsek JK, Chest. 2023;163[1]:38). The study included 13,714 people admitted to an ECMO-capable hospital with respiratory failure that required invasive ventilation because of an asthma exacerbation between 2010 and 2020, of which 127 were treated with ECMO and 13,587 were not. During this period, use of ECMO as a salvage therapy for severe asthma exacerbations was a rare event, but it became more common over time. With the limitation that 40% of asthma patients were transferred from an outside hospital, 74% were started on ECMO in the first 2 hospital days, and 94% were started within the first week of hospitalization. Once started, ECMO was continued for a median of 1.0 day and range of 1-49 days. Hospital mortality was 14.6% in the ECMO group versus 26.2% in the no ECMO group, which equated to an 11.6% absolute risk reduction (P = 0.03) and 52% relative risk reduction (P = 0.04) in mortality. ECMO was associated with hospital costs that were $114,000 higher per patient, compared with the no ECMO group, but did not affect intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, or time on invasive mechanical ventilation.

We were pleased that our patient had a good outcome, and were reassured by our study results. But we were left to wonder whether ECMO really was the best salvage therapy for asthma exacerbations with respiratory failure, and if it was initiated for the right indications at the best time. These are important treatment considerations that take on new urgency given that physicians are increasingly looking to ECMO as a salvage therapy for refractory asthma, and the recent FDA approval of low-flow, extracorporeal CO₂ removal systems that could make CO₂ removal a more available, and perhaps less expensive, strategy. Despite promising epidemiological data, it will be important that these questions are answered with well-designed clinical trials so that physicians can be armed with the knowledge needed to navigate complex clinical scenarios, and ultimately to prevent unfortunate deaths from a reversible disease.

The overnight shift in the MCU began as it does for many intensivists, by hearing about ED admissions, transfers from outside hospitals, sick floor patients, and high-risk patients in the MICU. Earlier in the day, the MICU team had admitted a 39-year-old woman with a severe asthma attack that required endotracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation in the ED for hypercarbic respiratory failure. After intubation, she had no audible air movement on chest exam, severe hypercarbic respiratory acidosis determined by an arterial blood gas, a clear chest radiograph, and negative findings on a respiratory viral panel. Her family said that she had run out of her steroid inhaler a month earlier and could not afford a refill. She had been using increasing amounts of albuterol over the past week before developing severe shortness of breath on the day of admission. The ED and MICU teams aggressively treated her with high-dose inhaled albuterol, ipratropium, and IV magnesium sulfate for bronchodilation; methylprednisolone for airway inflammation; and continuous ketamine for sedation, analgesia, and bronchodilation (Rehder KJ, et al. Respir Care. 2017;62[6]:849). Her airway pressures continued to be high despite using lung protective ventilation, so she was shifted to a permissive hypercapnia ventilation strategy using neuromuscular blockade, deep sedation, and low minute-ventilation (Laher AE, et al. J Intensive Care Med. 2018;33[9]:491).

CHEST

Two hours into the shift, the bedside nurse noted that the patient had become hypotensive. Her ventilator pressures remained stable with peak inspiratory pressures of 38-42 cm H₂O, plateau pressures of 28-30 cm H₂O, auto-positive end-expiratory pressure (auto-PEEP) of 10-12 cm H₂O, and fractional inspiratory oxygen (FiO₂) of 40%. A repeat chest radiograph showed no signs of barotrauma, but arterial blood gas values showed severe respiratory acidosis with a pH of 7.05 and a PCO₂ > 100 mm Hg. Her condition stabilized when she received a continuous infusion of bicarbonate to control her acidosis and low-dose IV norepinephrine for blood pressure control. It was at that moment that the bedside nurse astutely asked whether we should consider starting ECMO for the patient, as coauthor Dr. Arun Kannappan had done for a similar patient with asthma a month earlier. Dr. Vandivier notes, “My first response was that ECMO was not needed, because our patient had stabilized, and I had taken care of many patients like this in the past. But as I considered the situation more carefully, it was clear that any further decompensation could put our patient’s life at risk by not leaving enough time to start ECMO in a controlled setting. In short, my ‘traditional’ approach left little room for error in a patient with high ventilator pressures and hemodynamic instability.”

CHEST

ECMO is a technique used to add oxygen or remove CO₂ from the blood of people with different forms of respiratory failure (Fan E, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2016;2:712) that was first used by Hill and colleagues in 1966 for trauma-induced ARDS (Hill JD, et al. N Engl J Med. 1972;286:629). The ECMO circuit pumps blood from the venous system into an oxygenator that adds oxygen and removes CO₂ before blood is returned to either the venous or arterial circulation (Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:712). Venovenous ECMO (vvECMO) is used in clinical scenarios where only oxygenation and/or CO₂ removal is needed, whereas venoarterial ECMO (vaECMO) is reserved for situations where additional hemodynamic support is necessary. ECMO is traditionally thought of as a means to increase blood oxygenation, but it is less widely appreciated that ECMO is particularly effective at removing blood CO₂. In addition to ECMO helping to normalize oxygenation or eliminate CO₂, it can also be used to lower tidal volumes, decrease airway pressures, and allow “lungs to rest” with the goal of avoiding ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI).

CHEST

Standing at the bedside, it seemed to the authors that it was the right time to think about instituting a salvage therapy. But was there evidence that ECMO could improve survival? Were there clear guidelines for when to initiate ECMO, and was ECMO more effective than other salvage therapies such as inhaled volatile anesthetics?

Since McDonnell and colleagues first described the use of ECMO for a severe asthma exacerbation in 1981 (Ann Thoracic Surg. 1981;31[2]:171), about 95 articles have been published. Other than two registry studies and a recent epidemiologic study, all of these publications were case reports, case series, and reviews. Mikkelsen and colleagues (ASAIO J. 2009;55[1]:47) performed a retrospective, cohort study using the International Extracorporeal Life Support (ECLS) Organization Registry to determine whether ECMO use for status asthmaticus was associated with greater survival than the use of ECMO for other causes of respiratory failure. From 1986 through 2006, a total of 2,127 cases of respiratory failure were identified that required ECMO, including 27 for status asthmaticus and 1,233 for other causes. Their analysis showed that 83.3% of asthmatics treated with ECMO survived to hospital discharge, compared with 50.8% of people treated with ECMO for respiratory failure not due to asthma, with an odds ratio (OR) of 4.86 favoring survival of asthmatics (OR = 4.86; 95% CI, 1.65-14.31, P = .004).

Yeo and colleagues (Yeo HJ, et al. Critical Care. 2017;21:297) also used the ECLS Organization Registry to measure survival to hospital discharge, complications, and clinical factors associated with in-hospital mortality for asthmatics treated with ECMO. They included 272 people treated with ECMO for asthma between 1992 and 2016, after excluding people treated with ECMO for cardiopulmonary resuscitation or cardiac dysfunction. ECMO was associated with improvements in ventilator mechanics, including a reduction in respiratory rate, FiO₂, peak inspiratory pressure, mean airway pressure, and driving pressure. Use of ECMO for status asthmaticus was also associated with an 83.5% survival to hospital discharge, similar to the study by Mikkelsen and colleagues. Hemorrhage, the most common complication, occurred in roughly a quarter of people treated with ECMO. In the multivariate analysis, age, bleeding, pre-ECMO PEEP, post-ECMO FiO₂, and driving pressure were all associated with higher in-hospital mortality.

Although there are no formal criteria to guide use of ECMO for asthma exacerbations with respiratory failure, a number of physicians and a physician organization have recommended that ECMO be considered for persistently high ventilator pressures, uncontrolled respiratory acidosis, or hemodynamic instability. Because our patient qualified for ECMO based on all three suggested criteria, we consulted cardiac surgery who quickly started her on vvECMO. She remained on ECMO for 4 days until she was decannulated, extubated, and discharged home.

Despite this positive outcome, the lack of a high-quality, controlled study to help guide our decision was surprising given the ability of ECMO to efficiently remove CO₂ and to decrease ventilator pressures. The lack of guidance prompted us to perform a retrospective, epidemiologic cohort study to determine whether treatment with ECMO for asthma exacerbations with respiratory failure was associated with reduced mortality, compared with people treated without ECMO (Zakrajsek JK, Chest. 2023;163[1]:38). The study included 13,714 people admitted to an ECMO-capable hospital with respiratory failure that required invasive ventilation because of an asthma exacerbation between 2010 and 2020, of which 127 were treated with ECMO and 13,587 were not. During this period, use of ECMO as a salvage therapy for severe asthma exacerbations was a rare event, but it became more common over time. With the limitation that 40% of asthma patients were transferred from an outside hospital, 74% were started on ECMO in the first 2 hospital days, and 94% were started within the first week of hospitalization. Once started, ECMO was continued for a median of 1.0 day and range of 1-49 days. Hospital mortality was 14.6% in the ECMO group versus 26.2% in the no ECMO group, which equated to an 11.6% absolute risk reduction (P = 0.03) and 52% relative risk reduction (P = 0.04) in mortality. ECMO was associated with hospital costs that were $114,000 higher per patient, compared with the no ECMO group, but did not affect intensive care unit length of stay, hospital length of stay, or time on invasive mechanical ventilation.

We were pleased that our patient had a good outcome, and were reassured by our study results. But we were left to wonder whether ECMO really was the best salvage therapy for asthma exacerbations with respiratory failure, and if it was initiated for the right indications at the best time. These are important treatment considerations that take on new urgency given that physicians are increasingly looking to ECMO as a salvage therapy for refractory asthma, and the recent FDA approval of low-flow, extracorporeal CO₂ removal systems that could make CO₂ removal a more available, and perhaps less expensive, strategy. Despite promising epidemiological data, it will be important that these questions are answered with well-designed clinical trials so that physicians can be armed with the knowledge needed to navigate complex clinical scenarios, and ultimately to prevent unfortunate deaths from a reversible disease.

Airways Disorders Network

Asthma & COPD Section

The 2023 GOLD committee proposed changes in nomenclature and therapy for various subgroups of patients with COPD. The 2023 GOLD committee changed the ABCD group classification to ABE (for exacerbations), which highlights the importance of the number and severity of exacerbations irrespective of daily symptoms.

The mainstay of initial treatment for symptomatic COPD should include combination LABA/LAMA bronchodilators in a single inhaler. For patients with features of concomitant asthma or eosinophils greater than or equal to 300 cells/microliter, an ICS/LABA/LAMA combination inhaler is recommended.

People with “young COPD” develop respiratory symptoms and meet spirometric criteria for COPD between the ages of 25 and 50 years old. Other terminology changes center around those with functional and/or structural changes suggesting COPD, but who do not meet the postbronchodilator spirometric criteria to confirm the COPD diagnosis.

Those with “pre-COPD” have normal spirometry, including the FEV₁ and FEV₁/FVC ratio, but have functional and/or structural changes concerning for COPD. Functional changes include air trapping and/or hyperinflation on PFTs, low diffusion capacity, and/or decline in FEV₁ of > 40 mL per year.

Structural changes include emphysematous changes and/or bronchial wall changes on CT scans. “PRISm” stands for preserved ratio with impaired spirometry, where the postbronchodilator FEV₁/FVC is greater than or equal to 0.70, but FEV₁ is < 80% predicted with similar functional and/or structural changes to those with “pre-COPD.” People with PRISm have increased all-cause mortality. Not all people with pre-COPD or PRISm progress clinically and spirometrically to COPD; however, they should be treated because they have symptoms as well as functional and/or structural abnormalities. Despite increasing data regarding pre-COPD and PRISm, many gaps remain regarding optimal management.

Maria Ashar, MD, MBBS
Section Fellow-in-Training

Max J. Martin, MD
Section Fellow-in-Training

Sandra G. Adams, MD, MS, FCCP
Section Member-at-Large

Airways Disorders Network

Asthma & COPD Section

The 2023 GOLD committee proposed changes in nomenclature and therapy for various subgroups of patients with COPD. The 2023 GOLD committee changed the ABCD group classification to ABE (for exacerbations), which highlights the importance of the number and severity of exacerbations irrespective of daily symptoms.

The mainstay of initial treatment for symptomatic COPD should include combination LABA/LAMA bronchodilators in a single inhaler. For patients with features of concomitant asthma or eosinophils greater than or equal to 300 cells/microliter, an ICS/LABA/LAMA combination inhaler is recommended.

People with “young COPD” develop respiratory symptoms and meet spirometric criteria for COPD between the ages of 25 and 50 years old. Other terminology changes center around those with functional and/or structural changes suggesting COPD, but who do not meet the postbronchodilator spirometric criteria to confirm the COPD diagnosis.

Those with “pre-COPD” have normal spirometry, including the FEV₁ and FEV₁/FVC ratio, but have functional and/or structural changes concerning for COPD. Functional changes include air trapping and/or hyperinflation on PFTs, low diffusion capacity, and/or decline in FEV₁ of > 40 mL per year.

Structural changes include emphysematous changes and/or bronchial wall changes on CT scans. “PRISm” stands for preserved ratio with impaired spirometry, where the postbronchodilator FEV₁/FVC is greater than or equal to 0.70, but FEV₁ is < 80% predicted with similar functional and/or structural changes to those with “pre-COPD.” People with PRISm have increased all-cause mortality. Not all people with pre-COPD or PRISm progress clinically and spirometrically to COPD; however, they should be treated because they have symptoms as well as functional and/or structural abnormalities. Despite increasing data regarding pre-COPD and PRISm, many gaps remain regarding optimal management.

Maria Ashar, MD, MBBS
Section Fellow-in-Training

Max J. Martin, MD
Section Fellow-in-Training

Sandra G. Adams, MD, MS, FCCP
Section Member-at-Large

Airways Disorders Network

Asthma & COPD Section

The 2023 GOLD committee proposed changes in nomenclature and therapy for various subgroups of patients with COPD. The 2023 GOLD committee changed the ABCD group classification to ABE (for exacerbations), which highlights the importance of the number and severity of exacerbations irrespective of daily symptoms.

The mainstay of initial treatment for symptomatic COPD should include combination LABA/LAMA bronchodilators in a single inhaler. For patients with features of concomitant asthma or eosinophils greater than or equal to 300 cells/microliter, an ICS/LABA/LAMA combination inhaler is recommended.

People with “young COPD” develop respiratory symptoms and meet spirometric criteria for COPD between the ages of 25 and 50 years old. Other terminology changes center around those with functional and/or structural changes suggesting COPD, but who do not meet the postbronchodilator spirometric criteria to confirm the COPD diagnosis.

Those with “pre-COPD” have normal spirometry, including the FEV₁ and FEV₁/FVC ratio, but have functional and/or structural changes concerning for COPD. Functional changes include air trapping and/or hyperinflation on PFTs, low diffusion capacity, and/or decline in FEV₁ of > 40 mL per year.

Structural changes include emphysematous changes and/or bronchial wall changes on CT scans. “PRISm” stands for preserved ratio with impaired spirometry, where the postbronchodilator FEV₁/FVC is greater than or equal to 0.70, but FEV₁ is < 80% predicted with similar functional and/or structural changes to those with “pre-COPD.” People with PRISm have increased all-cause mortality. Not all people with pre-COPD or PRISm progress clinically and spirometrically to COPD; however, they should be treated because they have symptoms as well as functional and/or structural abnormalities. Despite increasing data regarding pre-COPD and PRISm, many gaps remain regarding optimal management.

Maria Ashar, MD, MBBS
Section Fellow-in-Training

Max J. Martin, MD
Section Fellow-in-Training

Sandra G. Adams, MD, MS, FCCP
Section Member-at-Large

As a member of CHEST leadership for years, Bob De Marco, MD, FCCP, ruminated over new, exciting ways to increase support of the philanthropic efforts of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Dr. De Marco knows all too well that the percentage of CHEST members who donate to support CHEST’s philanthropic initiatives is – in a word - underwhelming. For those who are involved, they do so greatly and with their whole selves, but Dr. De Marco believed more could be done.

In the months leading up to the CHEST Annual Meeting 2022 in Nashville, Dr. De Marco discussed fundraising with CHEST staff and was already thinking ahead to CHEST 2023 in Hawai’i.

“That’s when it hit me – we could leverage Hawai’i to get donations and to expose people to CHEST philanthropy,” said Dr. De Marco. “Hawai’i is a dream destination, and that might be the exact motivation it would take to get that first donation from someone.”

Having a good idea is one thing, but making sure it happens requires individual commitment. Dr. DeMarco personally pledged to cover the cost of first-class airfare for two to Hawai’i, hotel accommodations, and registration to CHEST 2023 in Honolulu. For a minimum donation of $250 to CHEST between September and the end of 2022, each donor would be entered into a drawing for a chance to win this dream trip.

“I thought to myself, who wouldn’t want this prize?” said Dr. De Marco.

“You get to go to paradise for free – with a guest – and attend a top tier educational conference. Knowing your entry supported an organization as deserving as CHEST is the cherry on top,” he added.

In launching the Hawai’i trip fundraiser before and during CHEST 2022, attendees from around the world were introduced to CHEST’s philanthropic efforts and its mission to champion lung health. Over $180,000 was donated during this time period, in no small part because of the Hawai’i travel reward.

“I’m happy to say that the fundraiser did a lot better than I expected, and I was elated to see all of the new donors,” said Dr. De Marco.

“It’s my hope that those first-time donors continue their support for all that we do to provide grants – community, research, and diversity – and support CHEST initiatives that impact patient care and change lives.”

During CHEST 2022, Dr. De Marco and other donors reflected on the organization’s philanthropic accomplishments and impact over the past decades.

Former grant recipients were invited to celebrate with donors and speak to what they were able to accomplish because of the support they received.

The celebration also introduced new CHEST initiatives, the First 5 Minutes® program and Bridging Specialties™: Timely Diagnosis for ILD. The former improves patient care through strengthened patient/clinician relationships, and the latter aims to eliminate gaps in diagnosing complex lung diseases like pulmonary fibrosis.

To all who donated to CHEST in 2022, Dr. De Marco said, “A sincere thank you to each and every one of you for helping us fulfill our mission. To the first-time donors, hopefully this will inspire you and your friends to be an active part of the CHEST family.”

And, to the winner of the trip, Dr. De Marco said, “A sincere congratulations and I hope you enjoy beautiful Hawai’i and your time at the meeting.”

Those who are interested in getting involved and supporting the philanthropic work of CHEST can contact chestphilanthropy@chestnet.org.

Out of the 150+ donors who gave $250 or more to CHEST between September 2022 and the end of 2022, longtime friend of CHEST, Noah Dorsky, was the recipient of two first-class tickets to Hawai’i, hotel accommodations, and registration to CHEST 2023 in Honolulu.

Noah donated specifically to the Mark J. Rosen, MD, Master FCCP Endowment in honor of his late friend, Dr. Mark J. Rosen, who served as CHEST President from 2006 to 2007 and died in 2019.

"Mark was a remarkable doctor and valued life-long friend,” Noah said. “My continued support for CHEST is my way of honoring his memory and how much he meant to me and others."

Dr. Rosen’s distinguished career in pulmonary and critical care medicine spanned more than 4 decades, marked by his deep commitments to medical education and patient care. Before serving as President, Dr. Rosen served on the CHEST Board of Regents for many years. He held positions as Chair or member on numerous CHEST committees, including Education, Nominations, Membership, Marketing, and Finance.

Following his passing, Dr. Rosen’s wife, Ilene, stayed engaged with CHEST by creating the endowment in his name and attending the CHEST Annual Meeting every year to award the Rosen Cup to the winners of the annual CHEST Challenge.

Congratulations, Noah, and thank you for your faithful giving to support the work of CHEST.

As a member of CHEST leadership for years, Bob De Marco, MD, FCCP, ruminated over new, exciting ways to increase support of the philanthropic efforts of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Dr. De Marco knows all too well that the percentage of CHEST members who donate to support CHEST’s philanthropic initiatives is – in a word - underwhelming. For those who are involved, they do so greatly and with their whole selves, but Dr. De Marco believed more could be done.

In the months leading up to the CHEST Annual Meeting 2022 in Nashville, Dr. De Marco discussed fundraising with CHEST staff and was already thinking ahead to CHEST 2023 in Hawai’i.

“That’s when it hit me – we could leverage Hawai’i to get donations and to expose people to CHEST philanthropy,” said Dr. De Marco. “Hawai’i is a dream destination, and that might be the exact motivation it would take to get that first donation from someone.”

Having a good idea is one thing, but making sure it happens requires individual commitment. Dr. DeMarco personally pledged to cover the cost of first-class airfare for two to Hawai’i, hotel accommodations, and registration to CHEST 2023 in Honolulu. For a minimum donation of $250 to CHEST between September and the end of 2022, each donor would be entered into a drawing for a chance to win this dream trip.

“I thought to myself, who wouldn’t want this prize?” said Dr. De Marco.

“You get to go to paradise for free – with a guest – and attend a top tier educational conference. Knowing your entry supported an organization as deserving as CHEST is the cherry on top,” he added.

In launching the Hawai’i trip fundraiser before and during CHEST 2022, attendees from around the world were introduced to CHEST’s philanthropic efforts and its mission to champion lung health. Over $180,000 was donated during this time period, in no small part because of the Hawai’i travel reward.

“I’m happy to say that the fundraiser did a lot better than I expected, and I was elated to see all of the new donors,” said Dr. De Marco.

“It’s my hope that those first-time donors continue their support for all that we do to provide grants – community, research, and diversity – and support CHEST initiatives that impact patient care and change lives.”

During CHEST 2022, Dr. De Marco and other donors reflected on the organization’s philanthropic accomplishments and impact over the past decades.

Former grant recipients were invited to celebrate with donors and speak to what they were able to accomplish because of the support they received.

The celebration also introduced new CHEST initiatives, the First 5 Minutes® program and Bridging Specialties™: Timely Diagnosis for ILD. The former improves patient care through strengthened patient/clinician relationships, and the latter aims to eliminate gaps in diagnosing complex lung diseases like pulmonary fibrosis.

To all who donated to CHEST in 2022, Dr. De Marco said, “A sincere thank you to each and every one of you for helping us fulfill our mission. To the first-time donors, hopefully this will inspire you and your friends to be an active part of the CHEST family.”

And, to the winner of the trip, Dr. De Marco said, “A sincere congratulations and I hope you enjoy beautiful Hawai’i and your time at the meeting.”

Those who are interested in getting involved and supporting the philanthropic work of CHEST can contact chestphilanthropy@chestnet.org.

Out of the 150+ donors who gave $250 or more to CHEST between September 2022 and the end of 2022, longtime friend of CHEST, Noah Dorsky, was the recipient of two first-class tickets to Hawai’i, hotel accommodations, and registration to CHEST 2023 in Honolulu.

Noah donated specifically to the Mark J. Rosen, MD, Master FCCP Endowment in honor of his late friend, Dr. Mark J. Rosen, who served as CHEST President from 2006 to 2007 and died in 2019.

"Mark was a remarkable doctor and valued life-long friend,” Noah said. “My continued support for CHEST is my way of honoring his memory and how much he meant to me and others."

Dr. Rosen’s distinguished career in pulmonary and critical care medicine spanned more than 4 decades, marked by his deep commitments to medical education and patient care. Before serving as President, Dr. Rosen served on the CHEST Board of Regents for many years. He held positions as Chair or member on numerous CHEST committees, including Education, Nominations, Membership, Marketing, and Finance.

Following his passing, Dr. Rosen’s wife, Ilene, stayed engaged with CHEST by creating the endowment in his name and attending the CHEST Annual Meeting every year to award the Rosen Cup to the winners of the annual CHEST Challenge.

Congratulations, Noah, and thank you for your faithful giving to support the work of CHEST.

As a member of CHEST leadership for years, Bob De Marco, MD, FCCP, ruminated over new, exciting ways to increase support of the philanthropic efforts of the American College of Chest Physicians.

Dr. De Marco knows all too well that the percentage of CHEST members who donate to support CHEST’s philanthropic initiatives is – in a word - underwhelming. For those who are involved, they do so greatly and with their whole selves, but Dr. De Marco believed more could be done.

In the months leading up to the CHEST Annual Meeting 2022 in Nashville, Dr. De Marco discussed fundraising with CHEST staff and was already thinking ahead to CHEST 2023 in Hawai’i.

“That’s when it hit me – we could leverage Hawai’i to get donations and to expose people to CHEST philanthropy,” said Dr. De Marco. “Hawai’i is a dream destination, and that might be the exact motivation it would take to get that first donation from someone.”

Having a good idea is one thing, but making sure it happens requires individual commitment. Dr. DeMarco personally pledged to cover the cost of first-class airfare for two to Hawai’i, hotel accommodations, and registration to CHEST 2023 in Honolulu. For a minimum donation of $250 to CHEST between September and the end of 2022, each donor would be entered into a drawing for a chance to win this dream trip.

“I thought to myself, who wouldn’t want this prize?” said Dr. De Marco.

“You get to go to paradise for free – with a guest – and attend a top tier educational conference. Knowing your entry supported an organization as deserving as CHEST is the cherry on top,” he added.

In launching the Hawai’i trip fundraiser before and during CHEST 2022, attendees from around the world were introduced to CHEST’s philanthropic efforts and its mission to champion lung health. Over $180,000 was donated during this time period, in no small part because of the Hawai’i travel reward.

“I’m happy to say that the fundraiser did a lot better than I expected, and I was elated to see all of the new donors,” said Dr. De Marco.

“It’s my hope that those first-time donors continue their support for all that we do to provide grants – community, research, and diversity – and support CHEST initiatives that impact patient care and change lives.”

During CHEST 2022, Dr. De Marco and other donors reflected on the organization’s philanthropic accomplishments and impact over the past decades.

Former grant recipients were invited to celebrate with donors and speak to what they were able to accomplish because of the support they received.

The celebration also introduced new CHEST initiatives, the First 5 Minutes® program and Bridging Specialties™: Timely Diagnosis for ILD. The former improves patient care through strengthened patient/clinician relationships, and the latter aims to eliminate gaps in diagnosing complex lung diseases like pulmonary fibrosis.

To all who donated to CHEST in 2022, Dr. De Marco said, “A sincere thank you to each and every one of you for helping us fulfill our mission. To the first-time donors, hopefully this will inspire you and your friends to be an active part of the CHEST family.”

And, to the winner of the trip, Dr. De Marco said, “A sincere congratulations and I hope you enjoy beautiful Hawai’i and your time at the meeting.”

Those who are interested in getting involved and supporting the philanthropic work of CHEST can contact chestphilanthropy@chestnet.org.

Out of the 150+ donors who gave $250 or more to CHEST between September 2022 and the end of 2022, longtime friend of CHEST, Noah Dorsky, was the recipient of two first-class tickets to Hawai’i, hotel accommodations, and registration to CHEST 2023 in Honolulu.

Noah donated specifically to the Mark J. Rosen, MD, Master FCCP Endowment in honor of his late friend, Dr. Mark J. Rosen, who served as CHEST President from 2006 to 2007 and died in 2019.

"Mark was a remarkable doctor and valued life-long friend,” Noah said. “My continued support for CHEST is my way of honoring his memory and how much he meant to me and others."

Dr. Rosen’s distinguished career in pulmonary and critical care medicine spanned more than 4 decades, marked by his deep commitments to medical education and patient care. Before serving as President, Dr. Rosen served on the CHEST Board of Regents for many years. He held positions as Chair or member on numerous CHEST committees, including Education, Nominations, Membership, Marketing, and Finance.

Following his passing, Dr. Rosen’s wife, Ilene, stayed engaged with CHEST by creating the endowment in his name and attending the CHEST Annual Meeting every year to award the Rosen Cup to the winners of the annual CHEST Challenge.

Congratulations, Noah, and thank you for your faithful giving to support the work of CHEST.

Thoracic Oncology Network

Interventional Procedures Section

The management of recurrent pleural effusions is challenging. Indwelling tunneled pleural catheters (IPCs) have been shown to reduce the need for additional pleural procedures, admissions, and health care costs. These devices have become an important treatment option in patients with malignant pleural effusions (MPE), particularly those with a nonexpandable lung (Feller-Kopman DJ, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;198[7]:839) and when talc pleurodesis is unsuccessful in patients with an expandable lung (Dresler CM, et al. Chest. 2005;127[3]:909).

Over the last 5 years, studies evaluating the use of IPCs in treating nonmalignant pleural disease have proliferated. These studies have included and shown the successful treatment of pleural effusions due to end-stage renal disease, advanced heart failure (Walker SP, et al. Eur Respir J. 2022;59[2]:2101362), and cirrhosis, especially when a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt or liver transplant is not an option (Shojaee S, et al., Chest. 2019;155[3]:546). Compared with MPE, the rate of pleurodesis is generally lower and takes longer when an IPC is used to manage a nonmalignant pleural disease. Infection is the most common complication; most cases can be managed without catheter removal.

With many cited advantages, the IPC is an essential tool in the armamentarium of the chest physician and interventional radiologist. Indwelling pleural catheters have proven applications beyond MPE. When applied in a multidisciplinary fashion involving subspecialists and considering the patient’s goals, using an IPC can help achieve a crucial patient-centric goal in managing a recurrent nonmalignant pleural effusion.

Samiksha Gupta, MD

2nd Year Fellow

Sameer Kaushik Avasarala, MD

Section Member-at-Large

Thoracic Oncology Network

Interventional Procedures Section

The management of recurrent pleural effusions is challenging. Indwelling tunneled pleural catheters (IPCs) have been shown to reduce the need for additional pleural procedures, admissions, and health care costs. These devices have become an important treatment option in patients with malignant pleural effusions (MPE), particularly those with a nonexpandable lung (Feller-Kopman DJ, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;198[7]:839) and when talc pleurodesis is unsuccessful in patients with an expandable lung (Dresler CM, et al. Chest. 2005;127[3]:909).

Over the last 5 years, studies evaluating the use of IPCs in treating nonmalignant pleural disease have proliferated. These studies have included and shown the successful treatment of pleural effusions due to end-stage renal disease, advanced heart failure (Walker SP, et al. Eur Respir J. 2022;59[2]:2101362), and cirrhosis, especially when a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt or liver transplant is not an option (Shojaee S, et al., Chest. 2019;155[3]:546). Compared with MPE, the rate of pleurodesis is generally lower and takes longer when an IPC is used to manage a nonmalignant pleural disease. Infection is the most common complication; most cases can be managed without catheter removal.

With many cited advantages, the IPC is an essential tool in the armamentarium of the chest physician and interventional radiologist. Indwelling pleural catheters have proven applications beyond MPE. When applied in a multidisciplinary fashion involving subspecialists and considering the patient’s goals, using an IPC can help achieve a crucial patient-centric goal in managing a recurrent nonmalignant pleural effusion.

Samiksha Gupta, MD

2nd Year Fellow

Sameer Kaushik Avasarala, MD

Section Member-at-Large

Thoracic Oncology Network

Interventional Procedures Section

The management of recurrent pleural effusions is challenging. Indwelling tunneled pleural catheters (IPCs) have been shown to reduce the need for additional pleural procedures, admissions, and health care costs. These devices have become an important treatment option in patients with malignant pleural effusions (MPE), particularly those with a nonexpandable lung (Feller-Kopman DJ, et al. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2018;198[7]:839) and when talc pleurodesis is unsuccessful in patients with an expandable lung (Dresler CM, et al. Chest. 2005;127[3]:909).

Over the last 5 years, studies evaluating the use of IPCs in treating nonmalignant pleural disease have proliferated. These studies have included and shown the successful treatment of pleural effusions due to end-stage renal disease, advanced heart failure (Walker SP, et al. Eur Respir J. 2022;59[2]:2101362), and cirrhosis, especially when a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt or liver transplant is not an option (Shojaee S, et al., Chest. 2019;155[3]:546). Compared with MPE, the rate of pleurodesis is generally lower and takes longer when an IPC is used to manage a nonmalignant pleural disease. Infection is the most common complication; most cases can be managed without catheter removal.

With many cited advantages, the IPC is an essential tool in the armamentarium of the chest physician and interventional radiologist. Indwelling pleural catheters have proven applications beyond MPE. When applied in a multidisciplinary fashion involving subspecialists and considering the patient’s goals, using an IPC can help achieve a crucial patient-centric goal in managing a recurrent nonmalignant pleural effusion.

Samiksha Gupta, MD

2nd Year Fellow

Sameer Kaushik Avasarala, MD

Section Member-at-Large

Critical Care Network

Nonrespiratory Critical Care Section

Advocating for early mobility for patients in the ICU seems like a no-brainer. This is especially true for critically ill patients, in which weakness is more common and can result in worse outcomes (Kress JP, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1626). This advocacy is endorsed by major societies and guidelines, like the ABCDEF bundle (Balas MC, et al. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:S116), in which “E” stands for Early mobility and exercise. In fact, the PADIS guidelines, addressing Pain, Agitation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep in the ICU, added Immobility and Sleep (the “I” and “S” in PADIS) to the prior PAD guidelines in the latest update in 2018, to stress the importance of early mobility in the ICU (Devlin JW, et al. Crit Care Med. 2018;46[9]:e825). Multiple studies have shown a positive impact of early mobility in the ICU on patients’ outcomes (Tipping CJ, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43:171).

The recent TEAM study examined an early mobility approach in mechanically ventilated patients and found no difference in the primary outcome of alive and out-of-hospital at 180 days (N Engl J Med. 2022;387:1747).

Before concluding, it is worth realizing that the usual care arm included mobilization that was otherwise normally provided. The intervention arm protocolized the early mobility to be done simultaneously with the minimization of sedation. Patients’ assessment occurred in 81% in the usual care arm vs 94% in the intervention arm; both numbers are much higher than reported data in the ICU (Jolley SE, et al. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:205).

Revisiting the question of early mobility in the ICU, more data are needed to clarify the best methodology, sedation, timing, amount, and type of patients who will benefit the most. Until then, it should remain a goal for ICUs and part of the daily discussion when caring for critically ill patients.

Mohammed J. Al-Jaghbeer, MBBS, FCCP

Section Member-at-Large

Salim Surani, MD, MPH, FCCP

Critical Care Network

Nonrespiratory Critical Care Section

Advocating for early mobility for patients in the ICU seems like a no-brainer. This is especially true for critically ill patients, in which weakness is more common and can result in worse outcomes (Kress JP, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1626). This advocacy is endorsed by major societies and guidelines, like the ABCDEF bundle (Balas MC, et al. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:S116), in which “E” stands for Early mobility and exercise. In fact, the PADIS guidelines, addressing Pain, Agitation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep in the ICU, added Immobility and Sleep (the “I” and “S” in PADIS) to the prior PAD guidelines in the latest update in 2018, to stress the importance of early mobility in the ICU (Devlin JW, et al. Crit Care Med. 2018;46[9]:e825). Multiple studies have shown a positive impact of early mobility in the ICU on patients’ outcomes (Tipping CJ, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43:171).

The recent TEAM study examined an early mobility approach in mechanically ventilated patients and found no difference in the primary outcome of alive and out-of-hospital at 180 days (N Engl J Med. 2022;387:1747).

Before concluding, it is worth realizing that the usual care arm included mobilization that was otherwise normally provided. The intervention arm protocolized the early mobility to be done simultaneously with the minimization of sedation. Patients’ assessment occurred in 81% in the usual care arm vs 94% in the intervention arm; both numbers are much higher than reported data in the ICU (Jolley SE, et al. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:205).

Revisiting the question of early mobility in the ICU, more data are needed to clarify the best methodology, sedation, timing, amount, and type of patients who will benefit the most. Until then, it should remain a goal for ICUs and part of the daily discussion when caring for critically ill patients.

Mohammed J. Al-Jaghbeer, MBBS, FCCP

Section Member-at-Large

Salim Surani, MD, MPH, FCCP

Critical Care Network

Nonrespiratory Critical Care Section

Advocating for early mobility for patients in the ICU seems like a no-brainer. This is especially true for critically ill patients, in which weakness is more common and can result in worse outcomes (Kress JP, et al. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1626). This advocacy is endorsed by major societies and guidelines, like the ABCDEF bundle (Balas MC, et al. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:S116), in which “E” stands for Early mobility and exercise. In fact, the PADIS guidelines, addressing Pain, Agitation, Delirium, Immobility, and Sleep in the ICU, added Immobility and Sleep (the “I” and “S” in PADIS) to the prior PAD guidelines in the latest update in 2018, to stress the importance of early mobility in the ICU (Devlin JW, et al. Crit Care Med. 2018;46[9]:e825). Multiple studies have shown a positive impact of early mobility in the ICU on patients’ outcomes (Tipping CJ, et al. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43:171).

The recent TEAM study examined an early mobility approach in mechanically ventilated patients and found no difference in the primary outcome of alive and out-of-hospital at 180 days (N Engl J Med. 2022;387:1747).

Before concluding, it is worth realizing that the usual care arm included mobilization that was otherwise normally provided. The intervention arm protocolized the early mobility to be done simultaneously with the minimization of sedation. Patients’ assessment occurred in 81% in the usual care arm vs 94% in the intervention arm; both numbers are much higher than reported data in the ICU (Jolley SE, et al. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:205).

Revisiting the question of early mobility in the ICU, more data are needed to clarify the best methodology, sedation, timing, amount, and type of patients who will benefit the most. Until then, it should remain a goal for ICUs and part of the daily discussion when caring for critically ill patients.

Mohammed J. Al-Jaghbeer, MBBS, FCCP

Section Member-at-Large

Salim Surani, MD, MPH, FCCP

Sleep Medicine Network

Home-Based Mechanical Ventilation & Neuromuscular Disease Section

Novel therapies for neuromuscular disease: What are the respiratory and sleep implications?

The natural history of respiratory impairment in children and adults with progressive neuromuscular disease (NMD) often follows a predictable progression. Muscle weakness leads to sleep-disordered breathing and sleep-related hypoventilation, followed by diurnal hypoventilation, and, ultimately leads to respiratory failure. A number of disease-specific and society guidelines provide protocols for anticipatory respiratory monitoring, such as the role of polysomnography, pulmonary function testing, and respiratory muscle strength testing. They also guide the treatment of respiratory symptoms, such as when to initiate cough augmentation and assisted ventilation.

The emergence of disease-modifying therapies over the last decade has changed the landscape of a number of neuromuscular diseases, including spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) and Duchenne muscular dystrophy. There are now cases of children with SMA type 1, who subsequent to treatment, are walking independently. Studies examining the impact of these therapies on motor function use standardized assessments, but there are limited studies assessing pulmonary and sleep outcomes (Gurbani N, et al. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2021;56[4]:700).

Researchers are also assessing the role of home testing to diagnose hypoventilation (Shi J, et al. Sleep Med. 2023;101:221-7) and using tools like positive airway pressure device data to guide treatment with noninvasive ventilation (Perrem L et al. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2020;55[1]:58-67). While these advances in therapy are exciting, we still do not know what the long-term respiratory function, prognosis, or disease progression may be. Questions remain regarding how to best monitor, and at what frequency to assess, the respiratory status in these patients.

Moshe Y. Prero, MD
Section Member-at-Large

Sleep Medicine Network

Home-Based Mechanical Ventilation & Neuromuscular Disease Section

Novel therapies for neuromuscular disease: What are the respiratory and sleep implications?

The natural history of respiratory impairment in children and adults with progressive neuromuscular disease (NMD) often follows a predictable progression. Muscle weakness leads to sleep-disordered breathing and sleep-related hypoventilation, followed by diurnal hypoventilation, and, ultimately leads to respiratory failure. A number of disease-specific and society guidelines provide protocols for anticipatory respiratory monitoring, such as the role of polysomnography, pulmonary function testing, and respiratory muscle strength testing. They also guide the treatment of respiratory symptoms, such as when to initiate cough augmentation and assisted ventilation.

The emergence of disease-modifying therapies over the last decade has changed the landscape of a number of neuromuscular diseases, including spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) and Duchenne muscular dystrophy. There are now cases of children with SMA type 1, who subsequent to treatment, are walking independently. Studies examining the impact of these therapies on motor function use standardized assessments, but there are limited studies assessing pulmonary and sleep outcomes (Gurbani N, et al. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2021;56[4]:700).

Researchers are also assessing the role of home testing to diagnose hypoventilation (Shi J, et al. Sleep Med. 2023;101:221-7) and using tools like positive airway pressure device data to guide treatment with noninvasive ventilation (Perrem L et al. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2020;55[1]:58-67). While these advances in therapy are exciting, we still do not know what the long-term respiratory function, prognosis, or disease progression may be. Questions remain regarding how to best monitor, and at what frequency to assess, the respiratory status in these patients.

Moshe Y. Prero, MD
Section Member-at-Large

Sleep Medicine Network

Home-Based Mechanical Ventilation & Neuromuscular Disease Section

Novel therapies for neuromuscular disease: What are the respiratory and sleep implications?

The natural history of respiratory impairment in children and adults with progressive neuromuscular disease (NMD) often follows a predictable progression. Muscle weakness leads to sleep-disordered breathing and sleep-related hypoventilation, followed by diurnal hypoventilation, and, ultimately leads to respiratory failure. A number of disease-specific and society guidelines provide protocols for anticipatory respiratory monitoring, such as the role of polysomnography, pulmonary function testing, and respiratory muscle strength testing. They also guide the treatment of respiratory symptoms, such as when to initiate cough augmentation and assisted ventilation.

The emergence of disease-modifying therapies over the last decade has changed the landscape of a number of neuromuscular diseases, including spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) and Duchenne muscular dystrophy. There are now cases of children with SMA type 1, who subsequent to treatment, are walking independently. Studies examining the impact of these therapies on motor function use standardized assessments, but there are limited studies assessing pulmonary and sleep outcomes (Gurbani N, et al. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2021;56[4]:700).

Researchers are also assessing the role of home testing to diagnose hypoventilation (Shi J, et al. Sleep Med. 2023;101:221-7) and using tools like positive airway pressure device data to guide treatment with noninvasive ventilation (Perrem L et al. Pediatr Pulmonol. 2020;55[1]:58-67). While these advances in therapy are exciting, we still do not know what the long-term respiratory function, prognosis, or disease progression may be. Questions remain regarding how to best monitor, and at what frequency to assess, the respiratory status in these patients.

Moshe Y. Prero, MD
Section Member-at-Large

Airway Disorders Network

Bronchiectasis Section

Bronchiectasis is a condition of dilated, inflamed airways and mucous production caused by a myriad of diseases. Bronchiectasis entails chronic productive cough and an increased risk of infections leading to exacerbations. Chronic bacterial infections are often a hallmark of severe disease, especially with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (O’Donnell AE. N Engl J Med. 2022;387[6]:533). Prophylactic inhaled antibiotics have been used as off-label therapies with mixed evidence, particularly in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (Rubin BK, et al. Respiration. 2014;88[3]:177). As the incidence of bronchiectasis increases worldwide, the need for evidence-based therapies to reduce symptom burden is increasing.

In a recent publication, Guan and colleagues evaluated the efficacy and safety of tobramycin inhaled solution (TIS) for bronchiectasis with chronic P. aeruginosa in a phase 3, 16-week, multicenter, double-blind randomized, controlled trial (Guan W-J, et al. Chest. 2023;163[1]:64). A regimen of twice-daily TIS, compared with nebulized normal saline, demonstrated a more significant reduction in P. aeruginosa sputum density after two cycles of 28 days on-treatment and 28 days off-treatment (adjusted mean difference, 1.74 log10 colony-forming units/g; 95% CI, 1.12-2.35; (P < .001), and more patients became culture-negative for P. aeruginosa in the TIS group than in the placebo group on day 29 (29.3% vs 10.6%). Adverse events were similar in both groups. Importantly, there was an improvement in quality-of-life bronchiectasis respiratory symptom score by 7.91 points at day 29 and 6.72 points at day 85; all three were statistically significant but just below the minimal clinically important difference of 8 points.

Dr. Conroy Wong and Dr. Miguel Angel Martinez-Garcia (Chest. 2023 Jan;163[1]:3) highlighted in their accompanying editorial that use of health-related quality of life score was a “distinguishing feature” of the trial as “most studies have used the change in microbial density as the primary outcome measure alone.”

Future studies evaluating cyclical vs continuous antibiotic administration, treatment duration, and impact on exacerbations continue to be needed.

Alicia Mirza, MD
Section Member-at-Large

Airway Disorders Network

Bronchiectasis Section

Bronchiectasis is a condition of dilated, inflamed airways and mucous production caused by a myriad of diseases. Bronchiectasis entails chronic productive cough and an increased risk of infections leading to exacerbations. Chronic bacterial infections are often a hallmark of severe disease, especially with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (O’Donnell AE. N Engl J Med. 2022;387[6]:533). Prophylactic inhaled antibiotics have been used as off-label therapies with mixed evidence, particularly in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (Rubin BK, et al. Respiration. 2014;88[3]:177). As the incidence of bronchiectasis increases worldwide, the need for evidence-based therapies to reduce symptom burden is increasing.

In a recent publication, Guan and colleagues evaluated the efficacy and safety of tobramycin inhaled solution (TIS) for bronchiectasis with chronic P. aeruginosa in a phase 3, 16-week, multicenter, double-blind randomized, controlled trial (Guan W-J, et al. Chest. 2023;163[1]:64). A regimen of twice-daily TIS, compared with nebulized normal saline, demonstrated a more significant reduction in P. aeruginosa sputum density after two cycles of 28 days on-treatment and 28 days off-treatment (adjusted mean difference, 1.74 log10 colony-forming units/g; 95% CI, 1.12-2.35; (P < .001), and more patients became culture-negative for P. aeruginosa in the TIS group than in the placebo group on day 29 (29.3% vs 10.6%). Adverse events were similar in both groups. Importantly, there was an improvement in quality-of-life bronchiectasis respiratory symptom score by 7.91 points at day 29 and 6.72 points at day 85; all three were statistically significant but just below the minimal clinically important difference of 8 points.

Dr. Conroy Wong and Dr. Miguel Angel Martinez-Garcia (Chest. 2023 Jan;163[1]:3) highlighted in their accompanying editorial that use of health-related quality of life score was a “distinguishing feature” of the trial as “most studies have used the change in microbial density as the primary outcome measure alone.”

Future studies evaluating cyclical vs continuous antibiotic administration, treatment duration, and impact on exacerbations continue to be needed.

Alicia Mirza, MD
Section Member-at-Large

Airway Disorders Network

Bronchiectasis Section

Bronchiectasis is a condition of dilated, inflamed airways and mucous production caused by a myriad of diseases. Bronchiectasis entails chronic productive cough and an increased risk of infections leading to exacerbations. Chronic bacterial infections are often a hallmark of severe disease, especially with Pseudomonas aeruginosa (O’Donnell AE. N Engl J Med. 2022;387[6]:533). Prophylactic inhaled antibiotics have been used as off-label therapies with mixed evidence, particularly in non-cystic fibrosis bronchiectasis (Rubin BK, et al. Respiration. 2014;88[3]:177). As the incidence of bronchiectasis increases worldwide, the need for evidence-based therapies to reduce symptom burden is increasing.

In a recent publication, Guan and colleagues evaluated the efficacy and safety of tobramycin inhaled solution (TIS) for bronchiectasis with chronic P. aeruginosa in a phase 3, 16-week, multicenter, double-blind randomized, controlled trial (Guan W-J, et al. Chest. 2023;163[1]:64). A regimen of twice-daily TIS, compared with nebulized normal saline, demonstrated a more significant reduction in P. aeruginosa sputum density after two cycles of 28 days on-treatment and 28 days off-treatment (adjusted mean difference, 1.74 log10 colony-forming units/g; 95% CI, 1.12-2.35; (P < .001), and more patients became culture-negative for P. aeruginosa in the TIS group than in the placebo group on day 29 (29.3% vs 10.6%). Adverse events were similar in both groups. Importantly, there was an improvement in quality-of-life bronchiectasis respiratory symptom score by 7.91 points at day 29 and 6.72 points at day 85; all three were statistically significant but just below the minimal clinically important difference of 8 points.

Dr. Conroy Wong and Dr. Miguel Angel Martinez-Garcia (Chest. 2023 Jan;163[1]:3) highlighted in their accompanying editorial that use of health-related quality of life score was a “distinguishing feature” of the trial as “most studies have used the change in microbial density as the primary outcome measure alone.”

Future studies evaluating cyclical vs continuous antibiotic administration, treatment duration, and impact on exacerbations continue to be needed.

Alicia Mirza, MD
Section Member-at-Large