Recruitability and effect of PEEP in SARS-Cov-2-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome

Determination of positive end-expiratory pressure in COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The impact of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) ventilation and the optimization of PEEP titration in COVID-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) continues to be a subject of debate. In this systematic review, we investigated the effects of varying PEEP settings on patients with severe ARDS primarily resulting from COVID-19 (C-ARDS).

OBJECTIVES

Does higher or lower PEEP improve the outcomes in COVID-19 ARDS? Does individually titrated PEEP lead to better outcomes compared with PEEP set by standardised (low and high ARDS network PEEP tables) approaches? Does the individually set PEEP (best PEEP) differ from PEEP set according to the standardised approaches (low and high ARDS network PEEP tables)?

DESIGN

Systematic review of observational studies without metaanalysis.

DATA SOURCES

We performed an extensive systematic literature search in Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (CCSR), PubMed, Embase.com, Web of Science Core Collection, World Health Organization COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease, World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), medRxiv, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials until 24/01/2024.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Ventilated adult patients (≧18 years) with C-ARDS.

RESULTS

We screened 16 026 records, evaluated 119 full texts, and included 12 studies (n = 1431 patients) in our final data synthesis, none of them being a randomised controlled trial. The heterogeneity of study procedures and populations did not allow conduction of a meta-analysis. The results of those studies that compared lower and higher PEEP strategies in C-ARDS were ambiguous pointing out either positive effects on oxygenation with high levels of PEEP, or negative changes in lung mechanics.

CONCLUSION

The available evidence does not provide sufficient guidance for recommendations on optimal PEEP settings in C-ARDS. In general, well designed platform studies are needed to answer the questions raised in this review and, in particular, to investigate the use of individualised PEEP titration techniques and the inclusion of patients with different ARDS entities, severities and disease stages.

TITLE REGISTRATION

Our systematic review protocol was registered with the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO 2021: CRD42021260303).

Respiratory Effects of Maximal Lung Recruitment Maneuvers Using Single-Breath Estimation in ARDS

BACKGROUND

Determining which patients with ARDS are most likely to benefit from lung recruitment maneuvers is challenging for physicians. The aim of this study was to assess whether the single-breath simplified decremental PEEP maneuver, which evaluates potential lung recruitment, may predict a subject's response to lung recruitment maneuvers, followed by PEEP titration.

METHODS

We conducted a pilot prospective single-center cohort study with a 3-step protocol that defined sequential measurements. First, potential lung recruitment was assessed by the single-breath maneuver in the volume controlled mode. Second, the lung recruitment maneuver was performed in the pressure controlled mode, with a fixed driving pressure of 15 cm H2O and a maximum PEEP of 30 cm H2O. Third, the lung recruitment maneuver was followed by decremental PEEP titration to determine the optimal PEEP, defined as the lowest driving pressure. Responders to the lung recruitment maneuver were defined by an improvement in [Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text] > 20% between the baseline state and the end of the PEEP titration phase.

RESULTS

Forty-two subjects with moderate-to-severe ARDS were included. The mean ± SD lung recruitment was 149 ± 104 mL. A threshold lung recruitment of 195 mL (area under the receiver operator characteristic curve 0.62, 95% CI 0.43-0.80) predicted a positive response to the maximal lung recruitment maneuver. The lung recruitment maneuver, followed by PEEP titration, resulted in a modification of PEEP in 74% of the subjects. PEEP was increased in more than two thirds of the responders and decreased in almost half of the non-responders to the lung recruitment maneuver. In addition, a decrease in driving pressure and an increase in respiratory system compliance were reported in 62% and 67% of the subjects, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

The single-breath maneuver for evaluating lung recruitability predicted, with poor accuracy, the subjects who responded to the lung recruitment maneuver based on [Formula: see text]/[Formula: see text] improvement. Nevertheless, the lung recruitment maneuver, followed by PEEP titration, improved ventilator settings and respiratory mechanics in a majority of subjects.

Previous Coronavirus Disease-2019 Infection and Lung Mechanics in Surgical Patients: A Hospital Registry Study

BACKGROUND

Long-term pulmonary complications have been reported after a coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). We hypothesized that a history of COVID-19 is associated with a measurable decrease in baseline respiratory system compliance in patients undergoing general anesthesia.

METHODS

In this hospital registry study, we included adult patients undergoing general anesthesia between January 2020 and March 2022 at a tertiary health care network in Massachusetts. We excluded patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status >IV, laryngoscopic surgeries, and patients who arrived intubated. The primary exposure was a history of COVID-19. The primary outcome was baseline respiratory system compliance (mL/cmH 2 O). Effects of severity of infection, surges (Alpha 1 , Alpha 2 , Delta, and Omicron), patient demographics, and time between infection and assessment of compliance were investigated.

RESULTS

A total of 19,921 patients were included. Approximately 1386 (7.0%) patients had a history of COVID-19. A history of COVID-19 at any time before surgery was associated with a measurably lower baseline respiratory system compliance (ratio of means adj = 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.94-0.97; P < .001; adjusted compliance difference: -1.6 mL/cmH 2 O). The association was more pronounced in patients with a severe form of COVID-19 (ratio of means adj = 0.95; 95% CI, 0.90-0.99; P = .02, adjusted compliance difference: -2 mL/cmH 2 O). Alpha 1 , Alpha 2 , and Delta surges, but not Omicron, led to a lower baseline respiratory system compliance ( P < .001, P = .02, and P < .001). The Delta surge effect was magnified in Hispanic ethnicity ( P -for-interaction = 0.003; ratio of means adj = 0.83; 95% CI, 0.74-0.93; P = .001; adjusted compliance difference: -4.6 mL/cmH 2 O).

CONCLUSIONS

A history of COVID-19 infection during Alpha 1 , Alpha 2 , and Delta surges was associated with a measurably lower baseline respiratory system compliance.

Respiratory effects of prone position in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome differ according to the recruitment-to-inflation ratio: a prospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Improvements in oxygenation and lung mechanics with prone position (PP) in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are inconstant. The objectives of the study were (i) to identify baseline variables, including the recruitment-to-inflation ratio (R/I), associated with a positive response to PP in terms of oxygenation (improvement of the ratio of arterial oxygen partial pressure over the inspired oxygen fraction (PaO2/FiO2) ≥ 20 mmHg) and lung mechanics; (ii) to evaluate whether the response to the previous PP session is associated with the response to the next session.

METHODS

In this prospective, observational, single-center study in patients who underwent PP for ARDS due to COVID-19, respiratory variables were assessed just before PP and at the end of the session. Respiratory variables included mechanical ventilation settings and respiratory mechanics variables, including R/I, an estimate of the potential for lung recruitment compared to lung overinflation.

RESULTS

In 50 patients, 201 PP sessions lasting 19 ± 3 h were evaluated. Neuromuscular blockades were used in 116 (58%) sessions. The PaO2/FiO2 ratio increased from 109 ± 31 mmHg to 165 ± 65 mmHg, with an increase ≥ 20 mmHg in 142 (71%) sessions. In a mixed effect logistic regression, only pre-PP PaO2/FiO2 (OR 1.12 (95% CI [1.01-1.24])/every decrease of 10 mmHg, p = 0.034) in a first model and improvement in oxygenation at the previous PP session (OR 3.69 (95% CI [1.27-10.72]), p = 0.017) in a second model were associated with an improvement in oxygenation with PP. The R/I ratio (n = 156 sessions) was 0.53 (0.30-0.76), separating lower- and higher-recruiters. Whereas PaO2/FiO2 improved to the same level in both subgroups, driving pressure and respiratory system compliance improved only in higher-recruiters (from 14 ± 4 to 12 ± 4 cmH2O, p = 0.027, and from 34 ± 11 to 38 ± 13 mL/cmH2O, respectively, p = 0.014).

CONCLUSIONS

A lower PaO2/FiO2 at baseline and a positive O2-response at the previous PP session are associated with a PP-induced improvement in oxygenation. In higher-recruiters, lung mechanics improved along with oxygenation. Benefits of PP could thus be greater in these patients.

Efficacy and Safety of High PEEP NIV in COVID-19 Patients

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the efficacy and safety of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) with high PEEP levels application in patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

METHODS

This is a retrospective cohort study with data collected from 95 patients who were administered NIV as part of their treatment in the COVID-19 intensive care unit (ICU) at University Hospital Centre Zagreb between October 2021 and February 2022. The definite outcome was NIV failure.

RESULTS

High PEEP NIV was applied in all 95 patients; 54 (56.84%) patients could be kept solely on NIV, while 41 (43.16%) patients required intubation. ICU mortality of patients solely on NIV was 3.70%, while total ICU mortality was 35.79%. The most significant difference in the dynamic of respiratory parameters between 2 patient groups was visible on Day 3 of ICU stay: By that day, patients kept solely on NIV required significantly lower PEEP levels and had better improvement in PaO2, P/F ratio, and HACOR score.

CONCLUSION

High PEEP applied by NIV was a safe option for the initial respiratory treatment of all patients, despite the severity of ARDS. For some patients, it was also shown to be the only necessary form of oxygen supplementation.

Impact of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure and FiO2 on Lung Mechanics and Intrapulmonary Shunt in Mechanically Ventilated Patients with ARDS Due to COVID-19 Pneumonia

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate the effects of inspired oxygen fraction (FiO2) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on gas exchange in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Methods: Two FiO2 (100%, 40%) were tested at 3 decreasing levels of PEEP (15, 10, and 5 cmH2O). At each FiO2 and PEEP, gas exchange, respiratory mechanics, hemodynamics, and the distribution of ventilation and perfusion were assessed with electrical impedance tomography. The impact of FiO2 on the intrapulmonary shunt (delta shunt) was analyzed as the difference between the calculated shunt at FiO2 100% (shunt) and venous admixture at FiO2 40% (venous admixture). Results: Fourteen patients were studied. Decreasing PEEP from 15 to 10 cmH2O did not change shunt (24 [21-28] vs 27 [24-29]%) or venous admixture (18 [15-26] vs 23 [18-34]%) while partial pressure of arterial oxygen (FiO2 100%) was higher at PEEP 15 (262 [198-338] vs 256 [147-315] mmHg; P < .05). Instead when PEEP was decreased from 10 to 5 cmH2O, shunt increased to 36 [30-39]% (P < .05) and venous admixture increased to 33 [30-43]% (P < .05) and partial pressure of arterial oxygen (100%) decreased to 109 [76-177] mmHg (P < .05). At PEEP 15, administration of 100% FiO2 resulted in a shunt greater than venous admixture at 40% FiO2, ((24 [21-28] vs 18 [15-26]%, P = .005), delta shunt 5.5% (2.3-8.8)). Compared to PEEP 10, PEEP of 5 and 15 cmH2O resulted in decreased global and pixel-level compliance. Cardiac output at FiO2 100% resulted higher at PEEP 5 (5.4 [4.4-6.5]) compared to PEEP 10 (4.8 [4.1-5.5], P < .05) and PEEP 15 cmH2O (4.7 [4.5-5.4], P < .05). Conclusion: In this study, PEEP of 15 cmH2O, despite resulting in the highest oxygenation, was associated with overdistension. PEEP of 5 cmH2O was associated with increased shunt and alveolar collapse. Administration of 100% FiO2 was associated with an increase in intrapulmonary shunt in the setting of high PEEP. Trial registration: NCT05132933.

Bedside personalized methods based on electrical impedance tomography or respiratory mechanics to set PEEP in ARDS and recruitment-to-inflation ratio: a physiologic study

BACKGROUND

Various Positive End-Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) titration strategies have been proposed to optimize ventilation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We aimed to compare PEEP titration strategies based on electrical impedance tomography (EIT) to methods derived from respiratory system mechanics with or without esophageal pressure measurements, in terms of PEEP levels and association with recruitability.

METHODS

Nineteen patients with ARDS were enrolled. Recruitability was assessed by the estimated Recruitment-to-Inflation ratio (R/Iest) between PEEP 15 and 5 cmH2O. Then, a decremental PEEP trial from PEEP 20 to 5 cmH2O was performed. PEEP levels determined by the following strategies were studied: (1) plateau pressure 28-30 cmH2O (Express), (2) minimal positive expiratory transpulmonary pressure (Positive PLe), (3) center of ventilation closest to 0.5 (CoV) and (4) intersection of the EIT-based overdistension and lung collapse curves (Crossing Point). In addition, the PEEP levels determined by the Crossing Point strategy were assessed using different PEEP ranges during the decremental PEEP trial.

RESULTS

Express and CoV strategies led to higher PEEP levels than the Positive PLe and Crossing Point ones (17 [14-17], 20 [17-20], 8 [5-11], 10 [8-11] respectively, p < 0.001). For each strategy, there was no significant association between the optimal PEEP level and R/Iest (Crossing Point: r2 = 0.073, p = 0.263; CoV: r2 < 0.001, p = 0.941; Express: r2 < 0.001, p = 0.920; Positive PLe: r2 = 0.037, p = 0.461). The PEEP level obtained with the Crossing Point strategy was impacted by the PEEP range used during the decremental PEEP trial.

CONCLUSIONS

CoV and Express strategies led to higher PEEP levels than the Crossing Point and Positive PLe strategies. Optimal PEEP levels proposed by these four methods were not associated with recruitability. Recruitability should be specifically assessed in ARDS patients to optimize PEEP titration.

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

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).

Tidal lung hysteresis to interpret PEEP-induced changes in compliance in ARDS patients

BACKGROUND

In ARDS, the PEEP level associated with the best respiratory system compliance is often selected; however, intra-tidal recruitment can increase compliance, falsely suggesting improvement in baseline mechanics. Tidal lung hysteresis increases with intra-tidal recruitment and can help interpreting changes in compliance. This study aims to assess tidal recruitment in ARDS patients and to test a combined approach, based on tidal hysteresis and compliance, to interpret decremental PEEP trials.

METHODS

A decremental PEEP trial was performed in 38 COVID-19 moderate to severe ARDS patients. At each step, we performed a low-flow inflation-deflation manoeuvre between PEEP and a constant plateau pressure, to measure tidal hysteresis and compliance.

RESULTS

According to changes of tidal hysteresis, three typical patterns were observed: 10 (26%) patients showed consistently high tidal-recruitment, 12 (32%) consistently low tidal-recruitment and 16 (42%) displayed a biphasic pattern moving from low to high tidal-recruitment below a certain PEEP. Compliance increased after 82% of PEEP step decreases and this was associated to a large increase of tidal hysteresis in 44% of cases. Agreement between best compliance and combined approaches was accordingly poor (K = 0.024). The combined approach suggested to increase PEEP in high tidal-recruiters, mainly to keep PEEP constant in biphasic pattern and to decrease PEEP in low tidal-recruiters. PEEP based on the combined approach was associated with lower tidal hysteresis (92.7 ± 20.9 vs. 204.7 ± 110.0 mL; p < 0.001) and lower dissipated energy per breath (0.1 ± 0.1 vs. 0.4 ± 0.2 J; p < 0.001) compared to the best compliance approach. Tidal hysteresis ≥ 100 mL was highly predictive of tidal recruitment at next PEEP step reduction (AUC 0.97; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Assessment of tidal hysteresis improves the interpretation of decremental PEEP trials and may help limiting tidal recruitment and energy dissipated into the respiratory system during mechanical ventilation of ARDS patients.

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.

Effect of the prone position on recruitability in acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19 pneumonia

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the effect of prone position on oxygenation and lung recruitability in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19 receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.

METHODS

This prospective study was conducted in the intensive care unit between December 10, 2021, and February 10, 2022. We included 25 patients admitted to our intensive care unit with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19 who had undergone prone position. We measured the respiratory system compliance, recruitment to inflation ratio, and PaO2/FiO2 ratio during the baseline supine, prone, and resupine positions. The recruitment to inflation ratio was used to assess the potential for lung recruitability.

RESULTS

In the prone position, PaO2/FiO2 increased from 82.7 to 164.4 mmHg (p<0.001) with an increase in respiratory system compliance (p=0.003). PaO2/FiO2 decreased to 117 mmHg (p=0.015) in the resupine with no change in respiratory system compliance (p=0.097). The recruitment to inflation ratio did not change in the prone and resupine positions (p=0.198 and p=0.621, respectively). In all patients, the median value of respiratory system compliance during supine was 26 mL/cmH2O. In patients with respiratory system compliance<26 mL/cmH2O (n=12), respiratory system compliance increased and recruitment to inflation decreased from supine to prone positions (p=0.008 and p=0.040, respectively), whereas they did not change in those with respiratory system compliance ≥26 mL/cmH2O8 (n=13) (p=0.279 and p=0.550, respectively) (ClinicalTrials registration number: NCT05150847).

CONCLUSION

In the prone position, in addition to the oxygenation benefit in all patients, we detected lung recruitment based on the change in the recruitment to inflation ratio with an increase in respiratory system compliance only in acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19 patients who have <26 mL/cmH2O baseline supine respiratory compliance.

Is COVID-19 different from other causes of acute respiratory distress syndrome?

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia can lead to acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. When mechanical ventilation is needed, almost all patients with COVID-19 pneumonia meet the criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The question of the specificities of COVID-19-associated ARDS compared to other causes of ARDS is of utmost importance, as it may justify changes in ventilatory strategies. This review aims to describe the pathophysiology of COVID-19-associated ARDS and discusses whether specific ventilatory strategies are required in these patients.

Lung ultrasound to evaluate aeration changes in response to recruitment maneuver and prone positioning in intubated patients with COVID-19 pneumonia: preliminary study

BACKGROUND

This single-center preliminary prospective observational study used bedside ultrasound to assess the lung aeration modifications induced by recruitment maneuver and pronation in intubated patients with acute respiratory disease syndrome (ARDS) related to coronavirus 2019 disease (COVID-19). All adult intubated COVID-19 patients suitable for pronation were screened. After enrollment, patients underwent 1 h in a volume-controlled mode in supine position (baseline) followed by a 35-cmH2O-recruitment maneuver of 2 min (recruitment). Final step involved volume-controlled mode in prone position set as at baseline (pronation). At the end of the first two steps and 1 h after pronation, a lung ultrasound was performed, and global and regional lung ultrasound score (LUS) were analyzed. Data sets are presented as a median and 25th-75th percentile.

RESULTS

From January to May 2022, 20 patients were included and analyzed. Global LUS reduced from 26.5 (23.5-30.0) at baseline to 21.5 (18.0-23.3) and 23.0 (21.0-26.3) at recruitment (p < 0.001) and pronation (p = 0.004). In the anterior lung regions, the regional LUS were 1.8 (1.1-2.0) following recruitment and 2.0 (1.6-2.2) in the supine (p = 0.008) and 2.0 (1.8-2.3) in prone position (p = 0.023). Regional LUS diminished from 2.3 (2.0-2.5) in supine to 2.0 (1.8-2.0) with recruitment in the lateral lung zones (p = 0.036). Finally, in the posterior lung units, regional LUS improved from 2.5 (2.3-2.8) in supine to 2.3 (1.8-2.5) through recruitment (p = 0.003) and 1.8 (1.3-2.2) with pronation (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

In our investigation, recruitment maneuver and prone positioning demonstrated an enhancement in lung aeration when compared to supine position, as assessed by bedside lung ultrasound.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov , Number NCT05209477, prospectively registered and released on 01/26/2022.

Acute Improvements of Oxygenation with Cpap and Clinical Outcomes in Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Multicenter, Retrospective Study

It is not known if the degrees of improvement in oxygenation obtained by CPAP can predict clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. This was a retrospective study conducted on patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia treated with CPAP in three University hospitals in Milan, Italy, from March 2020 to March 2021. Arterial gas analysis was obtained before and 1 h after starting CPAP. CPAP failure included either death in the respiratory units while on CPAP or the need for intubation. Two hundred and eleven patients (mean age 64 years, 74% males) were included. Baseline median PaO2, PaO2/FiO2 ratio (P/F), and the alveolar-arterial (A-a) O2 gradient were 68 (57−83) mmHg, 129 (91−179) mmHg and 310 (177−559) mmHg, respectively. Forty-two (19.9%) patients died in the respiratory units and 51 (24.2%) were intubated. After starting CPAP, PaO2/FiO2 increased by 57 (12−113; p < 0.001) mmHg, and (A-a) O2 was reduced by 68 (−25−250; p < 0.001) mmHg. A substantial overlap of PaO2, P/F, and A-a gradient at baseline and during CPAP was observed in CPAP failures and successes; CPAP-associated improvements in oxygenation in both groups were similar. In conclusion, CPAP-associated improvements in oxygenation do not predict clinical outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

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.

Physiological response to prone positioning in intubated adults with COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: a retrospective study

Background

COVID-19 related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has specific characteristics compared to ARDS in other populations. Proning is recommended by analogy with other forms of ARDS, but few data are available regarding its physiological effects in this population. This study aimed to assess the effects of proning on oxygenation parameters (PaO2/FiO2 and alveolo-arterial gradient (Aa-gradient)), blood gas analysis, ventilatory ratio (VR), respiratory system compliance (CRS) and estimated dead space fraction (VD/VT HB). We also looked for variables associated with treatment failure.

Methods

Retrospective monocentric study of intubated COVID-19 ARDS patients managed with an early intubation, low to moderate positive end-expiratory pressure and early proning strategy hospitalized from March 6 to April 30 2020. Blood gas analysis, PaO2/FiO2, Aa-gradient, VR, CRS and VD/VT HB were compared before and at the end of each proning session with paired t-tests or Wilcoxon tests (p < 0.05 considered as significant). Proportions were assessed using Fischer exact test or Chi square test.

Results

Forty-two patients were included for a total of 191 proning sessions, median duration of 16 (5–36) hours. Considering all sessions, PaO2/FiO2 increased (180 [148–210] vs 107 [90–129] mmHg, p < 0.001) and Aa-gradient decreased (127 [92–176] vs 275 [211–334] mmHg, p < 0.001) with proning. CRS (36.2 [30.0–41.8] vs 32.2 [27.5–40.9] ml/cmH2O, p = 0.003), VR (2.4 [2.0–2.9] vs 2.3 [1.9–2.8], p = 0.028) and VD/VT HB (0.72 [0.67–0.76] vs 0.71 [0.65–0.76], p = 0.022) slightly increased. Considering the first proning session, PaO2/FiO2 increased (186 [165–215] vs 104 [94–126] mmHg, p < 0.001) and Aa-gradient decreased (121 [89–160] vs 276 [238–321] mmHg, p < 0.001), while CRS, VR and VD/VT HB were unchanged. Similar variations were observed during the subsequent proning sessions. Among the patients who experienced treatment failure (defined as ICU death or need for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation), fewer expressed a positive response in terms of oxygenation (defined as increase of more than 20% in PaO2/FiO2) to the first proning (67 vs 97%, p = 0.020).

Conclusion

Proning in COVID-19 ARDS intubated patients led to an increase in PaO2/FiO2 and a decrease in Aa-gradient if we consider all the sessions together, the first one or the 4 subsequent sessions independently. When considering all sessions, CRS increased and VR and VD/VT HB only slightly increased.

Evolution of respiratory system compliance and potential for lung recruitment in COVID-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome

Background

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been frequently complicated by severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with prolonged invasive ventilation. While respiratory system compliance and lung recruitability have been described within the first days after ICU admission, data about their longitudinal changes are still limited. Therefore, we conducted this study to assess the evolution of respiratory system compliance and lung recruitability in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS.

Method

We conducted a prospective single-center study in patients admitted for COVID-19-related ARDS during the first wave of the pandemic, from March 16, 2020 to April 10, 2020. Respiratory system compliance was calculated daily at clinical positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) during passive breathing. The potential for lung recruitment was assessed by measuring the volume derecruited between PEEP 15 cmH₂O and 5 cmH₂O, and using the calculation of the recruitment-to-inflation ratio (R/I ratio). Recruitable lung was considered when the R/I ratio was at least 0.5. The primary outcome was the evolution of respiratory mechanics over time. The secondary outcome was the evolution of lung recruitability over time.

Results

Thirty-two patients were included in this study. The respiratory mechanics were assessed 222 times (7 ± 5 times per patient). Respiratory system compliance at clinical PEEP was 29.1 mL/cmH₂O (interquartile range [IQR]: 24.1-33.9 mL/cmH₂O) and decreased significantly over time (P <0.0001). Lung recruitability was assessed in 22 out of the 32 patients (60 assessments). The median volume derecruited between PEEP 15 cmH₂O and 5 cmH₂O was 246.8 mL (IQR: 180.8-352.2 mL) and the median R/I ratio was 0.56 (IQR: 0.39-0.73). Neither changed significantly over time. The proportion of patients with recruitable lung was 50.0% (6/12) within the first 3 days after intubation, 69.2% (9/13) between day 4 and day 7, and 66.7% (8/12) after day 7 (P=0.7934).

Conclusions

In our cohort, respiratory system compliance was low and decreased over time. The potential for lung recruitment was high and persisted despite prolonged mechanical ventilation, suggesting that maintaining high PEEP levels in the later course of COVID-19 could be adequate.

Extent and Distribution of Parenchymal Abnormalities in Baseline CT-Scans Do Not Predict Awake Prone Positioning Response in COVID-19 Related ARDS

Prone positioning is frequently used for non-intubated hypoxemic patients with COVID-19, although conclusive evidence is still lacking. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether baseline CT-scans could predict the improvement in oxygenation in COVID-19 related Acute respira-tory syndrome (ARDS) patients when pronated. Methods: A retrospective study of COVID-19 patients who underwent non-invasive ventilation (NIV) and prone positioning was conducted. Results: Forty-five patients were included. On average, 50% of the overall lung volume was affected by the disease, as observed in the CT-scans, with ground glass opacities (GGOs) and consolidations accounting for 44% and 4%, respectively. The abnormalities were mainly posterior, as demonstrated by posterior/anterior distribution ratios of 1.5 and 4.4 for GGO and consolidation, respectively. The median PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio during NIV in a supine position (SP1) was 140 [IQR 108–169], which improved by 67% (+98) during prone positioning, on average. Once supine positioning was resumed (SP2), the improvement in oxygenation was maintained in 28 patients (62% of the overall population, categorized as “responders”). We found no significant differences between responders and non-responders in terms of the extent (p = 0.92) and the distribution of parenchymal abnormalities seen in the baseline CT (p = 0.526). Conclusion: Despite the lack of a priori estimation of the sample size, considering the absence of any trends in the differences and correlations, we can reasonably conclude that the baseline chest CT-scan does not predict a gas-exchange response in awake prone-positioned patients with COVID-19 related ARDS. Physicians dealing with this category of patients should not rely on the imaging at presentation when evaluating whether to pronate patients.

Reversibility of total airway closure and alveolar consolidation in a COVID-19 patient: A case study

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) may be complicated by life-threatening pneumonia requiring tracheal intubation, mechanical ventilation and veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vvECMO). It is not yet clear to what extent and after which delay the most severe cases of COVID-19 pneumonia are reversible. Here, we present a 39-year-old patient who developed a severe COVID-19-attributed acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) resulting in complete alveolar consolidation and airway closure for several weeks. His remarkable ventilatory pattern was established using ventilator airway pressure curve analysis and computed tomography imaging. The patient was managed with supportive care, mechanical ventilation and vvECMO. He received dexamethasone and tocilizumab as immunomodulatory drugs. Despite multiple complications, he recovered and was weaned from vvECMO, ventilator and oxygen on days 75, 95 and 99 post-intubation, respectively. He was discharged from hospital on day 113. This case study strongly supports the remarkable potential for reversibility of ARDS in COVID-19 patients and discusses the implications for critical care nursing regarding mechanical ventilation and ECMO device management in patients who may become entirely dependent on vvECMO for oxygenation and carbon dioxide elimination.

Differentiating Phenotypes of Coronavirus Disease-2019 Pneumonia by Electric Impedance Tomography

Introduction

Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia has different phenotypes. Selecting the patient individualized and optimal respirator settings for the ventilated patient is a challenging process. Electric impedance tomography (EIT) is a real-time, radiation-free functional imaging technique that can aid clinicians in differentiating the "low" (L-) and "high" (H-) phenotypes of COVID-19 pneumonia described previously.

Methods

Two patients ("A" and "B") underwent a stepwise positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) recruitment by 3 cmH2O of steps from PEEP 10 to 25 and back to 10 cmH2O during a pressure control ventilation of 15 cmH2O. Recruitment maneuvers were performed under continuous EIT recording on a daily basis until patients required controlled ventilation mode.

Results

Patients "A" and "B" had a 7- and 12-day long trial, respectively. At the daily baseline, patient "A" had significantly higher compliance: mean ± SD = 53 ± 7 vs. 38 ± 5 ml/cmH2O (p < 0.001) and a significantly higher physiological dead space according to the Bohr-Enghoff equation than patient "B": mean ± SD = 52 ± 4 vs. 45 ± 6% (p = 0.018). Following recruitment maneuvers, patient "A" had a significantly higher cumulative collapse ratio detected by EIT than patient "B": mean ± SD = 0.40 ± 0.08 vs. 0.29 ± 0.08 (p = 0.007). In patient "A," there was a significant linear regression between the cumulative collapse ratios at the end of the recruitment maneuvers (R 2 = 0.824, p = 0.005) by moving forward in days, while not for patient "B" (R 2 = 0.329, p = 0.5).

Conclusion

Patient "B" was recognized as H-phenotype with high elastance, low compliance, higher recruitability, and low ventilation-to-perfusion ratio; meanwhile patient "A" was identified as the L-phenotype with low elastance, high compliance, and lower recruitability. Observation by EIT was not just able to differentiate the two phenotypes, but it also could follow the transition from L- to H-type within patient "A."

Clinical Trial Registration

www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04360837.

Mechanical Ventilation for COVID-19 Patients

Non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) is frequently needed in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. While NIV can be delivered in hospital wards and nonintensive care environments, intubated patients require intensive care unit (ICU) admission and support. Thus, the lack of ICU beds generated by the pandemic has often forced the use of NIV in severely hypoxemic patients treated outside the ICU. In this context, awake prone positioning has been widely adopted to ameliorate oxygenation during noninvasive respiratory support. Still, the incidence of NIV failure and the role of patient self-induced lung injury on hospital outcomes of COVID-19 subjects need to be elucidated. On the other hand, endotracheal intubation is indicated when gas exchange deterioration, muscular exhaustion, and/or neurological impairment ensue. Yet, the best timing for intubation in COVID-19 is still widely debated, as it is the safest use of neuromuscular blocking agents. Not differently from other types of acute respiratory distress syndrome, the aim of MV during COVID-19 is to provide adequate gas exchange while avoiding ventilator-induced lung injury. At the same time, the use of rescue therapies is advocated when standard care is unable to guarantee sufficient organ support. Nevertheless, the general shortage of health care resources experienced during SARS-CoV-2 pandemic might affect the utilization of high-cost, highly specialized, and long-term supports. In this article, we describe the state-of-the-art of NIV and MV setting and their usage for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure of COVID-19 patients.

Mortality and Pulmonary Embolism in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome From COVID-19 vs. Non-COVID-19

Purpose

There may be a difference in respiratory mechanics, inflammatory markers, and pulmonary emboli in COVID-19 associated ARDS vs. ARDS from other etiologies. Our purpose was to determine differences in respiratory mechanics, inflammatory markers, and incidence of pulmonary embolism in patients with and without COVID-19 associated ARDS admitted in the same period and treated with a similar ventilation strategy.

Methods

A cohort study of COVID-19 associated ARDS and non COVID-19 patients in a Saudi Arabian center between June 1 and 15, 2020. We measured respiratory mechanics (ventilatory ratio (VR), recruitability index (RI), markers of inflammation, and computed tomography pulmonary angiograms.

Results

Forty-two patients with COVID-19 and 43 non-COVID patients with ARDS comprised the cohort. The incidence of “recruitable” patients using the recruitment/inflation ratio was slightly lower in COVID-19 patients (62 vs. 86%; p = 0.01). Fifteen COVID-19 ARDS patients (35.7%) developed a pulmonary embolism as compared to 4 (9.3%) in other ARDS patients (p = 0.003). In COVID-19 patients, a D-Dimer ≥ 5.0 mcg/ml had a 73% (95% CI 45–92%) sensitivity and 89% (95% CI 71–98%) specificity for predicting pulmonary embolism. Crude 60-day mortality was higher in COVID-19 patients (35 vs. 15%; p = 0.039) but three multivariate analysis showed that independent predictors of 60-day mortality included the ventilatory ratio (OR 3.67, 95% CI 1.61–8.35), PaO2/FIO2 ratio (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.87–0.99), IL-6 (OR 1.02, 95% CI 1.00–1.03), and D-dimer (OR 7.26, 95% CI 1.11–47.30) but not COVID-19 infection.

Conclusion

COVID-19 patients were slightly less recruitable and had a higher incidence of pulmonary embolism than those with ARDS from other etiologies. A high D-dimer was predictive of pulmonary embolism in COVID-19 patients. COVID-19 infection was not an independent predictor of 60-day mortality in the presence of ARDS.

Potential for the lung recruitment and the risk of lung overdistension during 21 days of mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19 after noninvasive ventilation failure: the COVID-VENT observational trial

Background

Data on the lung respiratory mechanics and gas exchange in the time course of COVID-19-associated respiratory failure is limited. This study aimed to explore respiratory mechanics and gas exchange, the lung recruitability and risk of overdistension during the time course of mechanical ventilation.

Methods

This was a prospective observational study in critically ill mechanically ventilated patients (n = 116) with COVID-19 admitted into Intensive Care Units of Sechenov University. The primary endpoints were: «optimum» positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) level balanced between the lowest driving pressure and the highest SpO₂ and number of patients with recruitable lung on Days 1 and 7 of mechanical ventilation. We measured driving pressure at different levels of PEEP (14, 12, 10 and 8 cmH₂O) with preset tidal volume, and with the increase of tidal volume by 100 ml and 200 ml at preset PEEP level, and calculated static respiratory system compliance (C_RS), PaO₂/FiO₂, alveolar dead space and ventilatory ratio on Days 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 14 and 21.

Results

The «optimum» PEEP levels on Day 1 were 11.0 (10.0–12.8) cmH₂O and 10.0 (9.0–12.0) cmH₂O on Day 7. Positive response to recruitment was observed on Day 1 in 27.6% and on Day 7 in 9.2% of patients. PEEP increase from 10 to 14 cmH₂O and VT increase by 100 and 200 ml led to a significant decrease in C_RS from Day 1 to Day 14 (p < 0.05). Ventilatory ratio was 2.2 (1.7–2,7) in non-survivors and in 1.9 (1.6–2.6) survivors on Day 1 and decreased on Day 7 in survivors only (p < 0.01). PaO₂/FiO₂ was 105.5 (76.2–141.7) mmHg in non-survivors on Day 1 and 136.6 (106.7–160.8) in survivors (p = 0.002). In survivors, PaO₂/FiO₂ rose on Day 3 (p = 0.008) and then between Days 7 and 10 (p = 0.046).

Conclusion

Lung recruitability was low in COVID-19 and decreased during the course of the disease, but lung overdistension occurred at «intermediate» PEEP and VT levels. In survivors gas exchange improvements after Day 7 mismatched C_RS.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04445961. Registered 24 June 2020—Retrospectively registered.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12871-022-01600-0.

Effects of Prone Position on Lung Recruitment and Ventilation-Perfusion Matching in Patients With COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Prone positioning allows to improve oxygenation and decrease mortality rate in COVID-19–associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (C-ARDS). However, the mechanisms leading to these effects are not fully understood. The aim of this study is to assess the physiologic effects of pronation by the means of CT scan and electrical impedance tomography (EIT).

Pathophysiology of coronavirus-19 disease acute lung injury

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

More than 230 million people have tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 infection globally by September 2021. The infection affects primarily the function of the respiratory system, where ∼20% of infected individuals develop coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19) pneumonia. This review provides an update on the pathophysiology of the COVID-19 acute lung injury.

RECENT FINDINGS

In patients with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to the intensive care unit, the PaO2/FiO2 ratio is typically <26.7 kPa (200 mmHg), whereas lung volume appears relatively unchanged. This hypoxaemia is likely determined by a heterogeneous mismatch of pulmonary ventilation and perfusion, mainly associated with immunothrombosis, endothelialitis and neovascularisation. During the disease, lung weight, elastance and dead space can increase, affecting respiratory drive, effort and dyspnoea. In some severe cases, COVID-19 pneumonia may lead to irreversible pulmonary fibrosis.

SUMMARY

This review summarises the fundamental pathophysiological features of COVID-19 in the context of the respiratory system. It provides an overview of the key clinical manifestations of COVID-19 pneumonia, including gas exchange impairment, altered pulmonary mechanics and implications of abnormal chemical and mechanical stimuli. It also critically discusses the clinical implications for mechanical ventilation therapy.

Impact of Airway Humidification Strategy in Mechanically Ventilated COVID-19 Patients

BACKGROUND

Humidification of inspiratory gases is mandatory in all mechanically ventilated patients in ICUs, either with heated humidifiers (HHs) or with heat and moisture exchangers (HMEs). In patients with COVID-19, the choice of the humidification device may have relevant impact on patients' management as demonstrated in recent studies. We reported data from 2 ICUs using either HME or HH.

METHODS

Data from patients with COVID-19 requiring invasive mechanical ventilation during the first wave in 2 ICUs in Québec City were reviewed. In one ICU, HMEs were used, whereas heated-wire HHs were used in the other ICU. We compared ventilator settings and arterial blood gases at day one after adjustment of ventilator settings. Episodes of endotracheal tube occlusions (ETOs) or subocclusions and a strategy to limit the risk of under-humidification were reported. On a bench test, we measured humidity with psychrometry with HH at different ambient temperature and evaluated the relation with heater plate temperature.

RESULTS

We reported data from 20 subjects positive for SARS-Cov-2, including 6 in the ICU using HME and 14 in the ICU using HH. In the HME group, P_aCO2 was higher (48 vs 42 mm Hg) despite higher minute ventilation (171 vs 145 mL/kg/min predicted body weight [PBW]). We also reported 3 ETOs occurring in the ICU using HH. The hygrometric bench study reported a strong correlation between heater plate temperatures of the HH and humidity delivered. After implementation of measures to avoid under-humidification, including heater plate temperature monitoring, no more ETOs occurred.

CONCLUSIONS

The choice of the humidification device used in subjects with COVID-19 had a relevant impact on ventilation efficiency (increased CO₂ removal with lower dead space) and on complications related to low humidity, including ETOs that may be present with heated-wire HHs when used with high ambient temperatures.

Lower Driving Pressure and Neuromuscular Blocker Use Are Associated With Decreased Mortality in Patients With COVID-19 ARDS

BACKGROUND

The impact of mechanical ventilation parameters and management on outcomes of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) ARDS is unclear.

METHODS

This multi-center observational study enrolled consecutive mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS admitted to one of 7 Korean ICUs between February 1, 2020-February 28, 2021. Patients who were age < 17 y or had missing ventilation parameters for the first 4 d of mechanical ventilation were excluded. Multivariate logistic regression was used to identify which strategies or ventilation parameters that were independently associated with ICU mortality.

RESULTS

Overall, 129 subjects (males, 60%) with a median (interquartile range) age of 69 (62-78) y were included. Neuromuscular blocker (NMB) use and prone positioning were applied to 76% and 16% of subjects, respectively. The ICU mortality rate was 37%. In the multivariate analysis, higher dynamic driving pressure (ΔP) values during the first 4 d of mechanical ventilation were associated with increased mortality (adjusted odds ratio 1.16 [95% CI 1.00-1.33], P = .046). NMB use was associated with decreased mortality (adjusted odds ratio 0.27 [95% CI 0.09-0.81], P = .02). The median tidal volume values during the first 4 d of mechanical ventilation and the ICU mortality rate were significantly lower in the NMB group than in the no NMB group. However, subjects who received NMB for ≥ 6 d (vs < 6 d) had higher ICU mortality rate.

CONCLUSIONS

In subjects with COVID-19 ARDS receiving mechanical ventilation, ΔP during the first 4 d of mechanical ventilation was independently associated with mortality. The short-term use of NMB facilitated lung-protective ventilation and was independently associated with decreased mortality.

Airway Closure and Expiratory Flow Limitation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is mostly characterized by the loss of aerated lung volume associated with an increase in lung tissue and intense and complex lung inflammation. ARDS has long been associated with the histological pattern of diffuse alveolar damage (DAD). However, DAD is not the unique pathological figure in ARDS and it can also be observed in settings other than ARDS. In the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related ARDS, the impairment of lung microvasculature has been pointed out. The airways, and of notice the small peripheral airways, may contribute to the loss of aeration observed in ARDS. High-resolution lung imaging techniques found that in specific experimental conditions small airway closure was a reality. Furthermore, low-volume ventilator-induced lung injury, also called as atelectrauma, should involve the airways. Atelectrauma is one of the basic tenet subtending the use of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) set at the ventilator in ARDS. Recent data revisited the role of airways in humans with ARDS and provided findings consistent with the expiratory flow limitation and airway closure in a substantial number of patients with ARDS. We discussed the pattern of airway opening pressure disclosed in the inspiratory volume-pressure curves in COVID-19 and in non-COVID-19 related ARDS. In addition, we discussed the functional interplay between airway opening pressure and expiratory flow limitation displayed in the flow-volume curves. We discussed the individualization of the PEEP setting based on these findings.

Respiratory mechanics in late COVID-19 ARDS - a restrictive pattern is strongly associated with death. A cohort study

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 is associated with severe respiratory distress and high mortality. We investigated the evolution of the respiratory mechanics in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and the occurrence of a restrictive respiratory pattern.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A retrospective, single-centre study including patients admitted to the ICU during the first wave of the pandemic (March-April 2020).

RESULTS

A total of 141 consecutive patients were included. Many patients developed a restrictive pattern of respiratory mechanics during the course of the disease. Fifty-two patients died in the hospital (36.8%). In 29 cases (58% of the deceased) death was associated with a pattern of pulmonary mechanics, indicating a restrictive evolution of ARDS. Other diagnoses related to death were pulmonary embolism (n = 7, 14%), septic shock (n = 17, 33%), and other causes (n = 10, 20%), with some patients combining at least 2 of these diagnoses. In a multivariate analysis, age (OR = 1.06; 95% CI: 1.01-1.12; P = 0.029) and the administration of steroid pulses (OR = 2.7; 95% CI: 1.1-6.8; P = 0.03) were associated with the development of a restrictive pulmonary pattern and a higher level of plasmatic interleukin-6.

CONCLUSIONS

COVID-19 ARDS is associated with high mortality associated with a specific pattern of respiratory mechanics and sustained activation of innate immunological response. Age and administration of high-dose steroid pulses are associated with this clinical picture.

Mechanisms of oxygenation responses to proning and recruitment in COVID-19 pneumonia

PURPOSE

This study aimed at investigating the mechanisms underlying the oxygenation response to proning and recruitment maneuvers in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia.

METHODS

Twenty-five patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, at variable times since admission (from 1 to 3 weeks), underwent computed tomography (CT) lung scans, gas-exchange and lung-mechanics measurement in supine and prone positions at 5 cmH₂O and during recruiting maneuver (supine, 35 cmH₂O). Within the non-aerated tissue, we differentiated the atelectatic and consolidated tissue (recruitable and non-recruitable at 35 cmH₂O of airway pressure). Positive/negative response to proning/recruitment was defined as increase/decrease of PaO₂/FiO₂. Apparent perfusion ratio was computed as venous admixture/non aerated tissue fraction.

RESULTS

The average values of venous admixture and PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio were similar in supine-5 and prone-5. However, the PaO₂/FiO₂ changes (increasing in 65% of the patients and decreasing in 35%, from supine to prone) correlated with the balance between resolution of dorsal atelectasis and formation of ventral atelectasis (p = 0.002). Dorsal consolidated tissue determined this balance, being inversely related with dorsal recruitment (p = 0.012). From supine-5 to supine-35, the apparent perfusion ratio increased from 1.38 ± 0.71 to 2.15 ± 1.15 (p = 0.004) while PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio increased in 52% and decreased in 48% of patients. Non-responders had consolidated tissue fraction of 0.27 ± 0.1 vs. 0.18 ± 0.1 in the responding cohort (p = 0.04). Consolidated tissue, PaCO₂ and respiratory system elastance were higher in patients assessed late (all p < 0.05), suggesting, all together, "fibrotic-like" changes of the lung over time.

CONCLUSION

The amount of consolidated tissue was higher in patients assessed during the third week and determined the oxygenation responses following pronation and recruitment maneuvers.

Positive end-expiratory pressure in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: the heterogeneous effects

BACKGROUND

We hypothesized that as CARDS may present different pathophysiological features than classic ARDS, the application of high levels of end-expiratory pressure is questionable. Our first aim was to investigate the effects of 5-15 cmH2O of PEEP on partitioned respiratory mechanics, gas exchange and dead space; secondly, we investigated whether respiratory system compliance and severity of hypoxemia could affect the response to PEEP on partitioned respiratory mechanics, gas exchange and dead space, dividing the population according to the median value of respiratory system compliance and oxygenation. Thirdly, we explored the effects of an additional PEEP selected according to the Empirical PEEP-FiO2 table of the EPVent-2 study on partitioned respiratory mechanics and gas exchange in a subgroup of patients.

METHODS

Sixty-one paralyzed mechanically ventilated patients with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 were enrolled (age 60 [54-67] years, PaO2/FiO2 113 [79-158] mmHg and PEEP 10 [10-10] cmH2O). Keeping constant tidal volume, respiratory rate and oxygen fraction, two PEEP levels (5 and 15 cmH2O) were selected. In a subgroup of patients an additional PEEP level was applied according to an Empirical PEEP-FiO2 table (empirical PEEP). At each PEEP level gas exchange, partitioned lung mechanics and hemodynamic were collected.

RESULTS

At 15 cmH2O of PEEP the lung elastance, lung stress and mechanical power were higher compared to 5 cmH2O. The PaO2/FiO2, arterial carbon dioxide and ventilatory ratio increased at 15 cmH2O of PEEP. The arterial-venous oxygen difference and central venous saturation were higher at 15 cmH2O of PEEP. Both the mechanics and gas exchange variables significantly increased although with high heterogeneity. By increasing the PEEP from 5 to 15 cmH2O, the changes in partitioned respiratory mechanics and mechanical power were not related to hypoxemia or respiratory compliance. The empirical PEEP was 18 ± 1 cmH2O. The empirical PEEP significantly increased the PaO2/FiO2 but also driving pressure, lung elastance, lung stress and mechanical power compared to 15 cmH2O of PEEP.

CONCLUSIONS

In COVID-19 ARDS during the early phase the effects of raising PEEP are highly variable and cannot easily be predicted by respiratory system characteristics, because of the heterogeneity of the disease.

Detection of Different COVID-19 Pneumonia Phenotypes with Estimated Alveolar Collapse and Overdistention by Bedside Electrical Impedance Tomography

COVID-19 induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) could have two different phenotypes, which was reported to have different response and outcome to the typical ARDS positive end-expiration pressure (PEEP) treatment. The identification of the different phenotypes in terms of the recruitability can help improve the patient outcome. In this contribution we conducted alveolar overdistention and collapse analysis with the long term electrical impedance tomography monitoring data on two severe COVID-19 pneumonia patients. The result showed different patient reactions to the PEEP trial, revealed the progressive change in the patient status, and indicted a possible phenotype transition in one patient. It might suggest that EIT can be a practical tool to identify phenotypes and to provide progressive information of COVID-19 pneumonia.

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

Background

International guidelines suggest using a higher (> 10 cm H₂O) positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS due to COVID-19. However, even if oxygenation generally improves with a higher PEEP, compliance, and Paco₂ frequently do not, as if recruitment was small.

Research Question

Is the potential for lung recruitment small in patients with early ARDS due to COVID-19?

Study Design and Methods

Forty patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 were studied in the supine position within 3 days of endotracheal intubation. They all underwent a PEEP trial, in which oxygenation, compliance, and Paco₂ were measured with 5, 10, and 15 cm H₂O of PEEP, and all other ventilatory settings unchanged. Twenty underwent a whole-lung static CT scan at 5 and 45 cm H₂O, and the other 20 at 5 and 15 cm H₂O of airway pressure. Recruitment and hyperinflation were defined as a decrease in the volume of the non-aerated (density above −100 HU) and an increase in the volume of the over-aerated (density below −900 HU) lung compartments, respectively.

Results

From 5 to 15 cm H₂O, oxygenation improved in 36 (90%) patients but compliance only in 11 (28%) and Paco₂ only in 14 (35%). From 5 to 45 cm H₂O, recruitment was 351 (161-462) mL and hyperinflation 465 (220-681) mL. From 5 to 15 cm H₂O, recruitment was 168 (110-202) mL and hyperinflation 121 (63-270) mL. Hyperinflation variably developed in all patients and exceeded recruitment in more than half of them.

Interpretation

Patients with early ARDS due to COVID-19, ventilated in the supine position, present with a large potential for lung recruitment. Even so, their compliance and Paco₂ do not generally improve with a higher PEEP, possibly because of hyperinflation.

Pathophysiology of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and COVID-19 Lung Injury

The pathophysiology of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is marked by inflammation-mediated disruptions in alveolar-capillary permeability, edema formation, reduced alveolar clearance and collapse/derecruitment, reduced compliance, increased pulmonary vascular resistance, and resulting gas exchange abnormalities due to shunting and ventilation-perfusion mismatch. Mechanical ventilation, especially in the setting of regional disease heterogeneity, can propagate ventilator-associated injury patterns including barotrauma/volutrauma and atelectrauma. Lung injury due to the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 resembles other causes of ARDS, though its initial clinical characteristics may include more profound hypoxemia and loss of dyspnea perception with less radiologically-evident lung injury, a pattern not described previously in ARDS.

Mechanical ventilation in COVID-19: A physiological perspective

New Findings

What is the topic of this review?

This review presents the fundamental concepts of respiratory physiology and pathophysiology, with particular reference to lung mechanics and the pulmonary phenotype associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection and subsequent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pneumonia.

What advances does it highlight?

The review provides a critical summary of the main physiological aspects to be considered for safe and effective mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID‐19 in the intensive care unit.

Abstract

Severe respiratory failure from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pneumonia not responding to non‐invasive respiratory support requires mechanical ventilation. Although ventilation can be a life‐saving therapy, it can cause further lung injury if airway pressure and flow and their timing are not tailored to the respiratory system mechanics of the individual patient. The pathophysiology of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection can lead to a pattern of lung injury in patients with severe COVID‐19 pneumonia typically associated with two distinct phenotypes, along a temporal and pathophysiological continuum, characterized by different levels of elastance, ventilation‐to‐perfusion ratio, right‐to‐left shunt, lung weight and recruitability. Understanding the underlying pathophysiology, duration of symptoms, radiological characteristics and lung mechanics at the individual patient level is crucial for the appropriate choice of mechanical ventilation settings to optimize gas exchange and prevent further lung injury. By critical analysis of the literature, we propose fundamental physiological and mechanical criteria for the selection of ventilation settings for COVID‐19 patients in intensive care units. In particular, the choice of tidal volume should be based on obtaining a driving pressure < 14 cmH₂O, ensuring the avoidance of hypoventilation in patients with preserved compliance and of excessive strain in patients with smaller lung volumes and lower lung compliance. The level of positive end‐expiratory pressure (PEEP) should be informed by the measurement of the potential for lung recruitability, where patients with greater recruitability potential may benefit from higher PEEP levels. Prone positioning is often beneficial and should be considered early. The rationale for the proposed mechanical ventilation settings criteria is presented and discussed.

Role of proning and positive end-expiratory pressure in COVID-19

The novel coronavirus, which was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization in early 2020 has brought with itself major morbidity and mortality. It has increased hospital occupancy, heralded economic turmoil, and the rapid transmission and community spread have added to the burden of the virus. Most of the patients are admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for acute hypoxic respiratory failure often secondary to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Based on the limited data available, there have been different opinions about the respiratory mechanics of the ARDS caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Our article provides an insight into COVID-19 pathophysiology and how it differs from typical ARDS. Based on these differences, our article explains the different approach to ventilation in COVID-19 ARDS compared to typical ARDS. We critically analyze the role of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and proning in the ICU patients. Through the limited data and clinical experience are available, we believe that early proning in COVID-19 patients improves oxygenation and optimal PEEP should be titrated based on individual lung compliance.

Assessment of Lung Reaeration at 2 Levels of Positive End-expiratory Pressure in Patients With Early and Late COVID-19-related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

PURPOSE

Patients with novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) frequently develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and need invasive ventilation. The potential to reaerate consolidated lung tissue in COVID-19-related ARDS is heavily debated. This study assessed the potential to reaerate lung consolidations in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS under invasive ventilation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a retrospective analysis of patients with COVID-19-related ARDS who underwent chest computed tomography (CT) at low positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and after a recruitment maneuver at high PEEP of 20 cm H2O. Lung reaeration, volume, and weight were calculated using both CT scans. CT scans were performed after intubation and start of ventilation (early CT), or after several days of intensive care unit admission (late CT).

RESULTS

Twenty-eight patients were analyzed. The median percentages of reaerated and nonaerated lung tissue were 19% [interquartile range, IQR: 10 to 33] and 11% [IQR: 4 to 15] for patients with early and late CT scans, respectively (P=0.049). End-expiratory lung volume showed a median increase of 663 mL [IQR: 483 to 865] and 574 mL [IQR: 292 to 670] after recruitment for patients with early and late CT scans, respectively (P=0.43). The median decrease in lung weight attributed to nonaerated lung tissue was 229 g [IQR: 165 to 376] and 171 g [IQR: 81 to 229] after recruitment for patients with early and late CT scans, respectively (P=0.16).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of patients with COVID-19-related ARDS undergoing invasive ventilation had substantial reaeration of lung consolidations after recruitment and ventilation at high PEEP. Higher PEEP can be considered in patients with reaerated lung consolidations when accompanied by improvement in compliance and gas exchange.

2020 Year in Review: Mechanical Ventilation During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) represents the greatest medical crisis encountered in the young history of critical care and respiratory care. During the early months of the pandemic, when little was known about the virus, the acute hypoxemic respiratory failure it caused did not appear to fit conveniently or consistently into our classification of ARDS. This not only re-ignited a half-century's long simmering debate over taxonomy, but also fueled similar debates over how PEEP and lung-protective ventilation should be titrated, as well as the appropriate role of noninvasive ventilation in ARDS. COVID-19 ignited other debates on emerging concepts such as ARDS phenotypes and patient self-inflicted lung injury from vigorous spontaneous breathing. Over a year later, these early perplexities have receded into the background without having been reviewed or resolved. With a full year of evidence having been published, this narrative review systematically analyzes whether COVID-19-associated respiratory failure is essentially ARDS, with perhaps a somewhat different course of presentation. This includes a review of the severity of hypoxemia and derangements in pulmonary mechanics, PEEP requirements, recruitment potential, ability to achieve lung-protective ventilation goals, duration of mechanical ventilation, associated mortality, and response to noninvasive ventilation. This paper also reviews the concepts of ARDS phenotypes and patient self-inflicted lung injury as these are crucial to understanding the contentious debate over the nature and management of COVID-19.

Evaluation of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Strategies in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019-Induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Background: Different positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) strategies are available for subjects with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. We aimed to evaluate three conventional PEEP strategies on their effects on respiratory mechanics, gas exchanges, and hemodynamics. Methods: This is a prospective, physiologic, multicenter study conducted in China. We recruited 20 intubated subjects with ARDS and confirmed COVID-19. We first set PEEP by the ARDSnet low PEEP-fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO2) table. After a recruitment maneuver, PEEP was set at 15, 10, and 5 cm H2O for 10 min, respectively. Among these three PEEP levels, best-compliance PEEP was the one providing the highest respiratory system compliance; best-oxygenation PEEP was the one providing the highest PaO2 (partial pressure of arterial oxygen)/FIO2. Results: At each PEEP level, we assessed respiratory mechanics, arterial blood gas, and hemodynamics. Among three PEEP levels, plateau pressure, driving pressure, mechanical power, and blood pressure improved with lower PEEP. The ARDSnet low PEEP-FIO2 table and the best-oxygenation strategies provided higher PEEP than the best-compliance strategy (11 ± 6 cm H2O vs. 11 ± 3 cm H2O vs. 6 ± 2 cm H2O, p = 0.001), leading to higher plateau pressure, driving pressure, and mechanical power. The three PEEP strategies were not significantly different in gas exchange. The subgroup analysis showed that three PEEP strategies generated different effects in subjects with moderate or severe ARDS (n = 12) but not in subjects with mild ARDS (n = 8). Conclusions: In our cohort with COVID-19-induced ARDS, the ARDSnet low PEEP/FIO2 table and the best-oxygenation strategies led to higher PEEP and potentially higher risk of ventilator-induced lung injury than the best-compliance strategy. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04359251.

Longitudinal changes in compliance, oxygenation and ventilatory ratio in COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 pulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome

Background

Differences in physiology of ARDS have been described between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to compare initial values and longitudinal changes in respiratory system compliance (C_RS), oxygenation parameters and ventilatory ratio (VR) in patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 pulmonary ARDS matched on oxygenation.

Methods

135 patients with COVID-19 ARDS from two centers were included in a physiological study; 767 non-COVID-19 ARDS from a clinical trial were used for the purpose of at least 1:2 matching. A propensity-matching was based on age, severity score, oxygenation, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and pulmonary cause of ARDS and allowed to include 112 COVID-19 and 198 non-COVID pulmonary ARDS.

Results

The two groups were similar on initial oxygenation. COVID-19 patients had a higher body mass index, higher C_RS at day 1 (median [IQR], 35 [28–44] vs 32 [26–38] ml cmH₂O⁻¹, p = 0.037). At day 1, C_RS was correlated with oxygenation only in non-COVID-19 patients; 61.6% and 68.2% of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 pulmonary ARDS were still ventilated at day 7 (p = 0.241). Oxygenation became lower in COVID-19 than in non-COVID-19 patients at days 3 and 7, while C_RS became similar. VR was lower at day 1 in COVID-19 than in non-COVID-19 patients but increased from day 1 to 7 only in COVID-19 patients. VR was higher at days 1, 3 and 7 in the COVID-19 patients ventilated using heat and moisture exchangers compared to heated humidifiers. After adjustment on PaO₂/FiO₂, PEEP and humidification device, C_RS and VR were found not different between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at day 7. Day-28 mortality did not differ between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients (25.9% and 23.7%, respectively, p = 0.666).

Conclusions

For a similar initial oxygenation, COVID-19 ARDS initially differs from classical ARDS by a higher C_RS, dissociated from oxygenation. C_RS become similar for patients remaining on mechanical ventilation during the first week of evolution, but oxygenation becomes lower in COVID-19 patients.

Trial registration: clinicaltrials.gov NCT04385004

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03665-8.

The Pathophysiology and Dangers of Silent Hypoxemia in COVID-19 Lung Injury

The ongoing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has been unprecedented on many levels, not least of which are the challenges in understanding the pathophysiology of these new critically ill patients. One widely reported phenomenon is that of a profoundly hypoxemic patient with minimal to no dyspnea out of proportion to the extent of radiographic abnormality and change in lung compliance. This apparently unique presentation, sometimes called "happy hypoxemia or hypoxia" but better described as "silent hypoxemia," has led to the speculation of underlying pathophysiological differences between COVID-19 lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from other causes. We explore three proposed distinctive features of COVID-19 that likely bear on the genesis of silent hypoxemia, including differences in lung compliance, pulmonary vascular responses to hypoxia, and nervous system sensing and response to hypoxemia. In the context of known principles of respiratory physiology and neurobiology, we discuss whether these particular findings are due to direct viral effects or, equally plausible, are within the spectrum of typical ARDS pathophysiology and the wide range of hypoxic ventilatory and pulmonary vascular responses and dyspnea perception in healthy people. Comparisons between lung injury patterns in COVID-19 and other causes of ARDS are clouded by the extent and severity of this pandemic, which may underlie the description of "new" phenotypes, although our ability to confirm these phenotypes by more invasive and longitudinal studies is limited. However, given the uncertainty about anything unique in the pathophysiology of COVID-19 lung injury, there are no compelling pathophysiological reasons at present to support a therapeutic approach for these patients that is different from the proven standards of care in ARDS.