Lung response to a higher positive end-expiratory pressure in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19

Effect of decreasing PEEP on hyperinflation and collapse in COVID-19: A computed tomography study

BACKGROUND

High positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP>10 cmH2O) is commonly used in mechanically ventilated hypoxemic patients with COVID-19. However, some epidemiological and physiological studies indirectly suggest that using a lower PEEP may primarily and beneficially decrease lung hyperinflation in this population. Herein we directly quantified the effect of decreasing PEEP from 15 to 10 cmH2O on lung hyperinflation and collapse in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19.

METHODS

Twenty mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 underwent a lung computed tomography (CT) at PEEP of 15 and 10 cmH2O. The effect of decreasing PEEP on lung hyperinflation and collapse was directly quantified as the change in the over-aerated (density below -900 HU) and non-aerated (density above -100 HU) lung volumes. The net response to decreasing PEEP was computed as the sum of the change in those two compartments and expressed as the change in the "pathologic" lung volume. If the pathologic lung volume decreased (i.e., hyperinflation decreased more than collapse increased) when PEEP was decreased, the net response was considered positive; otherwise, it was considered negative.

RESULTS

On average, the ratio of arterial tension to inspiratory fraction of oxygen (PaO2:FiO2) in the overall study population was 137 (119-162) mmHg. In 11 (55%) patients, the net response to decreasing PEEP was positive. Their over-aerated lung volume decreased by 159 (98-186) mL, while the non-aerated lung volume increased by only 58 (31-91) mL. In nine (45%) patients, the net response was negative. Their over-aerated lung volume decreased by 46 (18-72) mL, but their non-aerated lung volume increased by 107 (44-121) mL.

CONCLUSION

In 20 patients with COVID-19 the net response to decreasing PEEP, as assessed with lung CT, was variable. In approximately half of them it was positive (and possibly beneficial), with a decrease in hyperinflation larger than the increase in collapse.

Setting positive end-expiratory pressure: does the 'best compliance' concept really work?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Determining the optimal positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) setting remains a central yet debated issue in the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).The 'best compliance' strategy set the PEEP to coincide with the peak respiratory system compliance (or 2 cmH 2 O higher) during a decremental PEEP trial, but evidence is conflicting.

RECENT FINDINGS

The physiological rationale that best compliance is always representative of functional residual capacity and recruitment has raised serious concerns about its efficacy and safety, due to its association with increased 28-day all-cause mortality in a randomized clinical trial in ARDS patients.Moreover, compliance measurement was shown to underestimate the effects of overdistension, and neglect intra-tidal recruitment, airway closure, and the interaction between lung and chest wall mechanics, especially in obese patients. In response to these concerns, alternative approaches such as recruitment-to-inflation ratio, the nitrogen wash-in/wash-out technique, and electrical impedance tomography (EIT) are gaining attention to assess recruitment and overdistention more reliably and precisely.

SUMMARY

The traditional 'best compliance' strategy for determining optimal PEEP settings in ARDS carries risks and overlooks some key physiological aspects. The advent of new technologies and methods presents more reliable strategies to assess recruitment and overdistention, facilitating personalized approaches to PEEP optimization.

Recruitment-to-inflation Ratio Assessed through Sequential End-expiratory Lung Volume Measurement in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

BACKGROUND

Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) benefits in acute respiratory distress syndrome are driven by lung dynamic strain reduction. This depends on the variable extent of alveolar recruitment. The recruitment-to-inflation ratio estimates recruitability across a 10-cm H2O PEEP range through a simplified maneuver. Whether recruitability is uniform or not across this range is unknown. The hypotheses of this study are that the recruitment-to-inflation ratio represents an accurate estimate of PEEP-induced changes in dynamic strain, but may show nonuniform behavior across the conventionally tested PEEP range (15 to 5 cm H2O).

METHODS

Twenty patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome underwent a decremental PEEP trial (PEEP 15 to 13 to 10 to 8 to 5 cm H2O). Respiratory mechanics and end-expiratory lung volume by nitrogen dilution were measured the end of each step. Gas exchange, recruited volume, recruitment-to-inflation ratio, and changes in dynamic, static, and total strain were computed between 15 and 5 cm H2O (global recruitment-to-inflation ratio) and within narrower PEEP ranges (granular recruitment-to-inflation ratio).

RESULTS

Between 15 and 5 cm H2O, median [interquartile range] global recruitment-to-inflation ratio was 1.27 [0.40 to 1.69] and displayed a linear correlation with PEEP-induced dynamic strain reduction (r = -0.94; P < 0.001). Intraindividual recruitment-to-inflation ratio variability within the narrower ranges was high (85% [70 to 109]). The relationship between granular recruitment-to-inflation ratio and PEEP was mathematically described by a nonlinear, quadratic equation (R2 = 0.96). Granular recruitment-to-inflation ratio across the narrower PEEP ranges itself had a linear correlation with PEEP-induced reduction in dynamic strain (r = -0.89; P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Both global and granular recruitment-to-inflation ratio accurately estimate PEEP-induced changes in lung dynamic strain. However, the effect of 10 cm H2O of PEEP on lung strain may be nonuniform. Granular recruitment-to-inflation ratio assessment within narrower PEEP ranges guided by end-expiratory lung volume measurement may aid more precise PEEP selection, especially when the recruitment-to-inflation ratio obtained with the simplified maneuver between PEEP 15 and 5 cm H2O yields intermediate values that are difficult to interpret for a proper choice between a high and low PEEP strategy.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation in the Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients Hospitalized in the Intensive Care Unit

New-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) is the most frequently encountered cardiac arrhythmia observed in patients with COVID-19 infection, particularly in Intensive Care Unit (ICU) patients. The purpose of the present review is to delve into the occurrence of NOAF in COVID-19 and thoroughly review recent, pertinent data. However, the causality behind this connection has yet to be thoroughly explored. The proposed mechanisms that could contribute to the development of AF in these patients include myocardial damage resulting from direct virus-induced cardiac injury, potentially leading to perimyocarditis; a cytokine crisis and heightened inflammatory response; hypoxemia due to acute respiratory distress; disturbances in acid-base and electrolyte levels; as well as the frequent use of adrenergic drugs in critically ill patients. Additionally, secondary bacterial sepsis and septic shock have been suggested as primary causes of NOAF in ICU patients. This notion gains strength from the observation of a similar prevalence of NOAF in septic non-COVID ICU patients with ARDS. It is plausible that both myocardial involvement from SARS-CoV-2 and secondary sepsis play pivotal roles in the onset of arrhythmia in ICU patients. Nonetheless, there exists a significant variation in the prevalence of NOAF among studies focused on severe COVID-19 cases with ARDS. This discrepancy could be attributed to the inclusion of mixed populations with varying degrees of illness severity, encompassing not only patients in general wards but also those admitted to the ICU, whether intubated or not. Furthermore, the occurrence of NOAF is linked to increased morbidity and mortality. However, it remains to be determined whether NOAF independently influences outcomes in critically ill COVID-19 ICU patients or if it merely reflects the disease's severity. Lastly, the management of NOAF in these patients has not been extensively studied. Nevertheless, the current guidelines for NOAF in non-COVID ICU patients appear to be effective, while accounting for the specific drugs used in COVID-19 treatment that may prolong the QT interval (although drugs like lopinavir/ritonavir, hydrochlorothiazide, and azithromycin have been discontinued) or induce bradycardia (e.g., remdesivir).

Risk Factors and Drug Efficacy for Severe Illness in Hemodialysis Patients Infected with the Omicron Variant of COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

The Omicron variant of the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has been spreading more rapidly and is more infectious, posing a higher risk of death and treatment difficulty for patients undergoing hemodialysis. This study aims to explore the severity rate and risk factors for hemodialysis patients infected with the Omicron variant and to conduct a preliminary analysis of the clinical efficacy of drugs.

METHODS

Clinical and biochemical indicators of 219 hemodialysis patients infected with the Omicron variant were statistically analyzed. The patients were divided into two groups based on whether they were severely ill or not, and multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine the risk factors for severe illness. The severely ill patients were then grouped based on discharge or death, and the treatment drugs were included as influencing factors for multiple regression analysis to determine the risk factors and protective factors for death of severely ill patients, and drug efficacy analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Analysis showed that diabetes, low oxygen saturation, and high C-reactive protein (CRP) were independent risk factors for severe illness in hemodialysis patients infected with the Omicron variant. A history of diabetes and high C-reactive significantly increased the risk of severe illness in patients (aOR: 1.450; aOR: 1.011), while a high oxygen saturation level can reduce this risk (aOR: 0.871). In addition, respiratory distress was an independent risk factor for death in severely patients, significantly reducing the probability of discharge for patients (aOR: 0.152). The drugs thymalfasin and Tanreqing significantly increased the probability of discharge for patients (aOR: 1.472; aOR: 3.104), with the latter having a higher correlation, but with a relatively longer effective course.

CONCLUSION

Hemodialysis patients infected with the Omicron variant of COVID-19 should pay special attention to their history of diabetes, CRP, and oxygen saturation levels, as well as respiratory distress symptoms, to reduce the risk of severe illness and death. In addition, thymalfasin and Tanreqing may be considered in treatment.

Setting the optimal positive end-expiratory pressure: a narrative review

The primary goals of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) are to restore functional residual capacity through recruitment and prevention of alveolar collapse. Through these mechanisms, PEEP improves arterial oxygenation and may reduce the risk of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). Because of the many potential negative effects associated with the use of PEEP, much research has concentrated on determining the optimal PEEP setting. Arterial oxygenation targets and pressure-volume loops have been utilized to set the optimal PEEP for decades. Several other techniques have been suggested, including the use of PEEP tables, compliance, driving pressure (DP), stress index (SI), transpulmonary pressures, imaging, and electrical impedance tomography. Each of these techniques has its own benefits and limitations and there is currently not one technique that is recommended above all others.

Lung Recruitment Assessed by Electrical Impedance Tomography (RECRUIT): A Multicenter Study of COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Rationale: Defining lung recruitability is needed for safe positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) selection in mechanically ventilated patients. However, there is no simple bedside method including both assessment of recruitability and risks of overdistension as well as personalized PEEP titration. Objectives: To describe the range of recruitability using electrical impedance tomography (EIT), effects of PEEP on recruitability, respiratory mechanics and gas exchange, and a method to select optimal EIT-based PEEP. Methods: This is the analysis of patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) from an ongoing multicenter prospective physiological study including patients with moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome of different causes. EIT, ventilator data, hemodynamics, and arterial blood gases were obtained during PEEP titration maneuvers. EIT-based optimal PEEP was defined as the crossing point of the overdistension and collapse curves during a decremental PEEP trial. Recruitability was defined as the amount of modifiable collapse when increasing PEEP from 6 to 24 cm H2O (ΔCollapse24-6). Patients were classified as low, medium, or high recruiters on the basis of tertiles of ΔCollapse24-6. Measurements and Main Results: In 108 patients with COVID-19, recruitability varied from 0.3% to 66.9% and was unrelated to acute respiratory distress syndrome severity. Median EIT-based PEEP differed between groups: 10 versus 13.5 versus 15.5 cm H2O for low versus medium versus high recruitability (P < 0.05). This approach assigned a different PEEP level from the highest compliance approach in 81% of patients. The protocol was well tolerated; in four patients, the PEEP level did not reach 24 cm H2O because of hemodynamic instability. Conclusions: Recruitability varies widely among patients with COVID-19. EIT allows personalizing PEEP setting as a compromise between recruitability and overdistension. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04460859).

New and personalized ventilatory strategies in patients with COVID-19

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) virus and may lead to severe respiratory failure and the need for mechanical ventilation (MV). At hospital admission, patients can present with severe hypoxemia and dyspnea requiring increasingly aggressive MV strategies according to the clinical severity: noninvasive respiratory support (NRS), MV, and the use of rescue strategies such as extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Among NRS strategies, new tools have been adopted for critically ill patients, with advantages and disadvantages that need to be further elucidated. Advances in the field of lung imaging have allowed better understanding of the disease, not only the pathophysiology of COVID-19 but also the consequences of ventilatory strategies. In cases of refractory hypoxemia, the use of ECMO has been advocated and knowledge on handling and how to personalize strategies have increased during the pandemic. The aims of the present review are to: (1) discuss the evidence on different devices and strategies under NRS; (2) discuss new and personalized management under MV based on the pathophysiology of COVID-19; and (3) contextualize the use of rescue strategies such as ECMO in critically ill patients with COVID-19.

Respective Effects of Helmet Pressure Support, Continuous Positive Airway Pressure, and Nasal High-Flow in Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Crossover Clinical Trial

Rationale: The respective effects of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and pressure support delivered through the helmet interface in patients with hypoxemia need to be better understood. Objectives: To assess the respective effects of helmet pressure support (noninvasive ventilation [NIV]) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) compared with high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) on effort to breathe, lung inflation, and gas exchange in patients with hypoxemia (PaO2/FiO2 ⩽ 200). Methods: Fifteen patients underwent 1-hour phases (constant FiO2) of HFNO (60 L/min), helmet NIV (PEEP = 14 cm H2O, pressure support = 12 cm H2O), and CPAP (PEEP = 14 cm H2O) in randomized sequence. Measurements and Main Results: Inspiratory esophageal (ΔPES) and transpulmonary pressure (ΔPL) swings were used as surrogates for inspiratory effort and lung distension, respectively. Tidal Volume (Vt) and end-expiratory lung volume were assessed with electrical impedance tomography. ΔPES was lower during NIV versus CPAP and HFNO (median [interquartile range], 5 [3-9] cm H2O vs. 13 [10-19] cm H2O vs. 10 [8-13] cm H2O; P = 0.001 and P = 0.01). ΔPL was not statistically different between treatments. PaO2/FiO2 ratio was significantly higher during NIV and CPAP versus HFNO (166 [136-215] and 175 [158-281] vs. 120 [107-149]; P = 0.002 and P = 0.001). NIV and CPAP similarly increased Vt versus HFNO (mean change, 70% [95% confidence interval (CI), 17-122%], P = 0.02; 93% [95% CI, 30-155%], P = 0.002) and end-expiratory lung volume (mean change, 198% [95% CI, 67-330%], P = 0.001; 263% [95% CI, 121-407%], P = 0.001), mostly due to increased aeration/ventilation in dorsal lung regions. During HFNO, 14 of 15 patients had pendelluft involving >10% of Vt; pendelluft was mitigated by CPAP and further by NIV. Conclusions: Compared with HFNO, helmet NIV, but not CPAP, reduced ΔPES. CPAP and NIV similarly increased oxygenation, end-expiratory lung volume, and Vt, without affecting ΔPL. NIV, and to a lesser extent CPAP, mitigated pendelluft. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04241861).

Positive end-expiratory pressure induced changes in airway driving pressure in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome patients

BACKGROUND

The profile of changes in airway driving pressure (dP_aw) induced by positive-end expiratory pressure (PEEP) might aid for individualized protective ventilation. Our aim was to describe the dP_aw versus PEEP curves behavior in ARDS from COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

Patients admitted in three hospitals were ventilated with fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂) and PEEP initially adjusted by oxygenation-based table. Thereafter, PEEP was reduced from 20 until 6 cmH₂O while dP_aw was stepwise recorded and the lowest PEEP that minimized dP_aw (PEEPmin_dP_aw) was assessed. Each dP_aw vs PEEP curve was classified as J-shaped, inverted-J-shaped, or U-shaped according to the difference between the minimum dP_aw and the dP_aw at the lowest and highest PEEP. In one hospital, hyperdistention and collapse at each PEEP were assessed by electrical impedance tomography (EIT).

RESULTS

184 patients (41 including EIT) were studied. 126 patients (68%) exhibited a J-shaped dP_aw vs PEEP profile (PEEPmin_dP_aw of 7.5 ± 1.9 cmH₂O). 40 patients (22%) presented a U (PEEPmin_dP_aw of 12.2 ± 2.6 cmH₂O) and 18 (10%) an inverted-J profile (PEEPmin_dP_aw of 14,6 ± 2.3 cmH₂O). Patients with inverted-J profiles had significant higher body mass index (BMI) and lower baseline partial pressure of arterial oxygen/FiO₂ ratio. PEEPmin_dP_aw was associated with lower fractions of both alveolar collapse and hyperinflation.

CONCLUSIONS

A PEEP adjustment procedure based on PEEP-induced changes in dP_aw is feasible and may aid in individualized PEEP for protective ventilation. The PEEP required to minimize driving pressure was influenced by BMI and was low in the majority of patients.

Electric impedance tomography-guided PEEP titration reduces mechanical power in ARDS: a randomized crossover pilot trial

BACKGROUND

In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome undergoing mechanical ventilation, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) can lead to recruitment or overdistension. Current strategies utilized for PEEP titration do not permit the distinction. Electric impedance tomography (EIT) detects and quantifies the presence of both collapse and overdistension. We investigated whether using EIT-guided PEEP titration leads to decreased mechanical power compared to high-PEEP/FiO2 tables.

METHODS

A single-center, randomized crossover pilot trial comparing EIT-guided PEEP selection versus PEEP selection using the High-PEEP/FiO₂ table in patients with moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. The primary outcome was the change in mechanical power after each PEEP selection strategy. Secondary outcomes included changes in the 4 × driving pressure + respiratory rate (4 ΔP, + RR index) index, driving pressure, plateau pressure, PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, and static compliance.

RESULTS

EIT was consistently associated with a decrease in mechanical power compared to PEEP/FiO₂ tables (mean difference - 4.36 J/min, 95% CI - 6.7, - 1.95, p = 0.002) and led to lower values in the 4ΔP + RR index (- 11.42 J/min, 95% CI - 19.01, - 3.82, p = 0.007) mainly driven by a decrease in the elastic-dynamic power (- 1.61 J/min, - 2.99, - 0.22, p = 0.027). The elastic-static and resistive powers were unchanged. Similarly, EIT led to a statistically significant change in set PEEP (- 2 cmH₂O, p = 0.046), driving pressure, (- 2.92 cmH2O, p = 0.003), peak pressure (- 6.25 cmH₂O, p = 0.003), plateau pressure (- 4.53 cmH₂O, p = 0.006), and static respiratory system compliance (+ 7.93 ml/cmH₂O, p = 0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome, EIT-guided PEEP titration reduces mechanical power mainly through a reduction in elastic-dynamic power. Trial registration This trial was prospectively registered on Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03793842) on January 4th, 2019.

Capnodynamic monitoring of lung volume and blood flow in response to increased positive end-expiratory pressure in moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia: an observational study

Background

The optimal level of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) during mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 pneumonia remains debated and should ideally be guided by responses in both lung volume and perfusion. Capnodynamic monitoring allows both end-expiratory lung volume (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\text{EELV}}_{{{\text{CO}}_{2} }}$$\end{document}EELVCO2) and effective pulmonary blood flow (EPBF) to be determined at the bedside with ongoing ventilation.

Methods

Patients with COVID-19-related moderate to severe respiratory failure underwent capnodynamic monitoring of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\text{EELV}}_{{{\text{CO}}_{2} }}$$\end{document}EELVCO2 and EPBF during a step increase in PEEP by 50% above the baseline (PEEP_low to PEEP_high). The primary outcome was a > 20 mm Hg increase in arterial oxygen tension to inspired fraction of oxygen (P/F) ratio to define responders versus non-responders. Secondary outcomes included changes in physiological dead space and correlations with independently determined recruited lung volume and the recruitment-to-inflation ratio at an instantaneous, single breath decrease in PEEP. Mixed factor ANOVA for group mean differences and correlations by Pearson’s correlation coefficient are reported including their 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Of 27 patients studied, 15 responders increased the P/F ratio by 55 [24–86] mm Hg compared to 12 non-responders (p < 0.01) as PEEP_low (11 ± 2.7 cm H₂O) was increased to PEEP_high (18 ± 3.0 cm H₂O). The \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\text{EELV}}_{{{\text{CO}}_{2} }}$$\end{document}EELVCO2 was 461 [82–839] ml less in responders at PEEP_low (p = 0.02) but not statistically different between groups at PEEP_high. Responders increased both \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\text{EELV}}_{{{\text{CO}}_{2} }}$$\end{document}EELVCO2 and EPBF at PEEP_high (r = 0.56 [0.18–0.83], p = 0.03). In contrast, non-responders demonstrated a negative correlation (r = − 0.65 [− 0.12 to − 0.89], p = 0.02) with increased lung volume associated with decreased pulmonary perfusion. Decreased (− 0.06 [− 0.02 to − 0.09] %, p < 0.01) dead space was observed in responders. The change in \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\text{EELV}}_{{{\text{CO}}_{2} }}$$\end{document}EELVCO2 correlated with both the recruited lung volume (r = 0.85 [0.69–0.93], p < 0.01) and the recruitment-to-inflation ratio (r = 0.87 [0.74–0.94], p < 0.01).

Conclusions

In mechanically ventilated patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 respiratory failure, improved oxygenation in response to increased PEEP was associated with increased end-expiratory lung volume and pulmonary perfusion. The change in end-expiratory lung volume was positively correlated with the lung volume recruited and the recruitment-to-inflation ratio. This study demonstrates the feasibility of capnodynamic monitoring to assess physiological responses to PEEP at the bedside to facilitate an individualised setting of PEEP.

Trial registration: NCT05082168 (18th October 2021).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-04110-0.

Response to PEEP in COVID-19 ARDS patients with and without extracorporeal membrane oxygenation. A multicenter case–control computed tomography study

Background

PEEP selection in severe COVID-19 patients under extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is challenging as no study has assessed the alveolar recruitability in this setting. The aim of the study was to compare lung recruitability and the impact of PEEP on lung aeration in moderate and severe ARDS patients with or without ECMO, using computed tomography (CT).

Methods

We conducted a two-center prospective observational case–control study in adult COVID-19-related patients who had an indication for CT within 72 h of ARDS onset in non-ECMO patients or within 72  h after ECMO onset. Ninety-nine patients were included, of whom 24 had severe ARDS under ECMO, 59 severe ARDS without ECMO and 16 moderate ARDS.

Results

Non-inflated lung at PEEP 5 cmH₂O was significantly greater in ECMO than in non-ECMO patients. Recruitment induced by increasing PEEP from 5 to 15 cmH₂O was not significantly different between ECMO and non-ECMO patients, while PEEP-induced hyperinflation was significantly lower in the ECMO group and virtually nonexistent. The median [IQR] fraction of recruitable lung mass between PEEP 5 and 15 cmH₂O was 6 [4–10]%. Total superimposed pressure at PEEP 5 cmH₂O was significantly higher in ECMO patients and amounted to 12 [11–13] cmH₂O. The hyperinflation-to-recruitment ratio (i.e., a trade-off index of the adverse effects and benefits of PEEP) was significantly lower in ECMO patients and was lower than one in 23 (96%) ECMO patients, 41 (69%) severe non-ECMO patients and 8 (50%) moderate ARDS patients. Compliance of the aerated lung at PEEP 5 cmH₂O corrected for PEEP-induced recruitment (C_{BABY LUNG}) was significantly lower in ECMO patients than in non-ECMO patients and was linearly related to the logarithm of the hyperinflation-to-recruitment ratio.

Conclusions

Lung recruitability of COVID-19 pneumonia is not significantly different between ECMO and non-ECMO patients, with substantial interindividual variations. The balance between hyperinflation and recruitment induced by PEEP increase from 5 to 15 cmH₂O appears favorable in virtually all ECMO patients, while this PEEP level is required to counteract compressive forces leading to lung collapse. C_{BABY LUNG} is significantly lower in ECMO patients, independently of lung recruitability.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-04076-z.

Heterogeneity of Ventilation/Perfusion Mismatch at Different Levels of PEEP and in Mechanical Phenotypes of COVID-19 ARDS

BACKGROUND

COVID-19-related ARDS is characterized by severe hypoxemia with initially preserved lung compliance and impaired ventilation/perfusion (V̇/Q̇) matching. PEEP can increase end-expiratory lung volume, but its effect on V̇/Q̇ mismatch in COVID-19-related ARDS is not clear.

METHODS

We enrolled intubated and mechanically ventilated subjects with COVID-19 ARDS and used the automatic lung parameter estimator (ALPE) to measure V̇/Q̇. Respiratory mechanics measurements, shunt, and V̇/Q̇ mismatch (low V̇/Q̇ and high V̇/Q̇) were collected at 3 PEEP levels (clinical PEEP = intermediate PEEP, low PEEP [clinical - 50%], and high PEEP [clinical + 50%]). A mixed-effect model was used to evaluate the impact of PEEP on V̇/Q̇. We also investigated if PEEP might have a different effect on V̇/Q̇ mismatch in 2 different respiratory mechanics phenotypes, that is, high elastance/low compliance (phenotype H) and low elastance/high compliance (phenotype L).

RESULTS

Seventeen subjects with COVID-related ARDS age 66 [60-71] y with a PaO2 /FIO2 of 141 ± 74 mm Hg were studied at low PEEP = 5.6 ± 2.2 cm H2O, intermediate PEEP = 10.6 ± 3.8 cm H2O, and high PEEP = 15 ± 5 cm H2O. Shunt, low V̇/Q̇, high V̇/Q̇, and alveolar dead space were not significantly influenced, on average, by PEEP. Respiratory system compliance decreased significantly when increasing PEEP without significant variation of PaO2 /FIO2 (P = .26). In the 2 phenotypes, PEEP had opposite effects on shunt, with a decrease in the phenotype L and an increase in phenotype H (P = .048).

CONCLUSIONS

In subjects with COVID-related ARDS placed on invasive mechanical ventilation for > 48 h, PEEP had a heterogeneous effect on V̇/Q̇ mismatch and, on average, higher levels were not able to reduce shunt. The subject's compliance could influence the effect of PEEP on V̇/Q̇ mismatch since an increased shunt was observed in subjects with lower compliance, whereas the opposite occurred in those with higher compliance.

COVID-19-Related ARDS: Key Mechanistic Features and Treatments

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a heterogeneous syndrome historically characterized by the presence of severe hypoxemia, high-permeability pulmonary edema manifesting as diffuse alveolar infiltrate on chest radiograph, and reduced compliance of the integrated respiratory system as a result of widespread compressive atelectasis and fluid-filled alveoli. Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19)-associated ARDS (C-ARDS) is a novel etiology caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) that may present with distinct clinical features as a result of the viral pathobiology unique to SARS-CoV-2. In particular, severe injury to the pulmonary vascular endothelium, accompanied by the presence of diffuse microthrombi in the pulmonary microcirculation, can lead to a clinical presentation in which the severity of impaired gas exchange becomes uncoupled from lung capacity and respiratory mechanics. The purpose of this review is to highlight the key mechanistic features of C-ARDS and to discuss the implications these features have on its treatment. In some patients with C-ARDS, rigid adherence to guidelines derived from clinical trials in the pre-COVID era may not be appropriate.

Imaging the acute respiratory distress syndrome: past, present and future

In patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), lung imaging is a fundamental tool in the study of the morphological and mechanistic features of the lungs. Chest computed tomography studies led to major advances in the understanding of ARDS physiology. They allowed the in vivo study of the syndrome's lung features in relation with its impact on respiratory physiology and physiology, but also explored the lungs' response to mechanical ventilation, be it alveolar recruitment or ventilator-induced lung injuries. Coupled with positron emission tomography, morphological findings were put in relation with ventilation, perfusion or acute lung inflammation. Lung imaging has always been central in the care of patients with ARDS, with modern point-of-care tools such as electrical impedance tomography or lung ultrasounds guiding clinical reasoning beyond macro-respiratory mechanics. Finally, artificial intelligence and machine learning now assist imaging post-processing software, which allows real-time analysis of quantitative parameters that describe the syndrome's complexity. This narrative review aims to draw a didactic and comprehensive picture of how modern imaging techniques improved our understanding of the syndrome, and have the potential to help the clinician guide ventilatory treatment and refine patient prognostication.

Lung response to prone positioning in mechanically-ventilated patients with COVID-19

BACKGROUND

Prone positioning improves survival in moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) unrelated to the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19). This benefit is probably mediated by a decrease in alveolar collapse and hyperinflation and a more homogeneous distribution of lung aeration, with fewer harms from mechanical ventilation. In this preliminary physiological study we aimed to verify whether prone positioning causes analogue changes in lung aeration in COVID-19. A positive result would support prone positioning even in this other population.

METHODS

Fifteen mechanically-ventilated patients with COVID-19 underwent a lung computed tomography in the supine and prone position with a constant positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) within three days of endotracheal intubation. Using quantitative analysis, we measured the volume of the non-aerated, poorly-aerated, well-aerated, and over-aerated compartments and the gas-to-tissue ratio of the ten vertical levels of the lung. In addition, we expressed the heterogeneity of lung aeration with the standardized median absolute deviation of the ten vertical gas-to-tissue ratios, with lower values indicating less heterogeneity.

RESULTS

By the time of the study, PEEP was 12 (10-14) cmH2O and the PaO2:FiO2 107 (84-173) mmHg in the supine position. With prone positioning, the volume of the non-aerated compartment decreased by 82 (26-147) ml, of the poorly-aerated compartment increased by 82 (53-174) ml, of the normally-aerated compartment did not significantly change, and of the over-aerated compartment decreased by 28 (11-186) ml. In eight (53%) patients, the volume of the over-aerated compartment decreased more than the volume of the non-aerated compartment. The gas-to-tissue ratio of the ten vertical levels of the lung decreased by 0.34 (0.25-0.49) ml/g per level in the supine position and by 0.03 (- 0.11 to 0.14) ml/g in the prone position (p < 0.001). The standardized median absolute deviation of the gas-to-tissue ratios of those ten levels decreased in all patients, from 0.55 (0.50-0.71) to 0.20 (0.14-0.27) (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In fifteen patients with COVID-19, prone positioning decreased alveolar collapse, hyperinflation, and homogenized lung aeration. A similar response has been observed in other ARDS, where prone positioning improves outcome. Therefore, our data provide a pathophysiological rationale to support prone positioning even in COVID-19.

Understanding the pathophysiology of typical acute respiratory distress syndrome and severe COVID-19

Introduction

Typical acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and severe coronavirus-19 (COVID-19) pneumonia share complex pathophysiology, a high mortality rate, and an unmet need for efficient therapeutics.

Areas covered

This review discusses the current advances in understanding the pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying typical ARDS and severe COVID-19 pneumonia, highlighting specific aspects of COVID-19-related acute hypoxemic respiratory failure that require attention. Two models have been proposed to describe the mechanisms of respiratory failure associated with typical ARDS and severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

Expert opinion

ARDS is defined as a syndrome rather than a distinct pathologic entity. There is great heterogeneity regarding the pathophysiologic, clinical, radiologic, and biological phenotypes in patients with ARDS, challenging clinicians, and scientists to discover new therapies. COVID-19 has been described as a cause of pulmonary ARDS and has reopened many questions regarding the pathophysiology of ARDS itself. COVID-19 lung injury involves direct viral epithelial cell damage and thrombotic and inflammatory reactions. There are some differences between ARDS and COVID-19 lung injury in aspects of aeration distribution, perfusion, and pulmonary vascular responses.