Spontaneous breathing, transpulmonary pressure and mathematical trickery

Development of clinical tools to estimate the breathing effort during high-flow oxygen therapy: A multicenter cohort study

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES

Quantifying breathing effort in non-intubated patients is important but difficult. We aimed to develop two models to estimate it in patients treated with high-flow oxygen therapy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We analyzed the data of 260 patients from previous studies who received high-flow oxygen therapy. Their breathing effort was measured as the maximal deflection of esophageal pressure (ΔPes). We developed a multivariable linear regression model to estimate ΔPes (in cmH2O) and a multivariable logistic regression model to predict the risk of ΔPes being >10 cmH2O. Candidate predictors included age, sex, diagnosis of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), respiratory rate, heart rate, mean arterial pressure, the results of arterial blood gas analysis, including base excess concentration (BEa) and the ratio of arterial tension to the inspiratory fraction of oxygen (PaO2:FiO2), and the product term between COVID-19 and PaO2:FiO2.

RESULTS

We found that ΔPes can be estimated from the presence or absence of COVID-19, BEa, respiratory rate, PaO2:FiO2, and the product term between COVID-19 and PaO2:FiO2. The adjusted R2 was 0.39. The risk of ΔPes being >10 cmH2O can be predicted from BEa, respiratory rate, and PaO2:FiO2. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.79 (0.73-0.85). We called these two models BREF, where BREF stands for BReathing EFfort and the three common predictors: BEa (B), respiratory rate (RE), and PaO2:FiO2 (F).

CONCLUSIONS

We developed two models to estimate the breathing effort of patients on high-flow oxygen therapy. Our initial findings are promising and suggest that these models merit further evaluation.

Effect of Respiratory Support Type and Total Duration on Weaning From Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in COVID-19 Patients

Background: We evaluated the impact of noninvasive respiratory support (NRS) and invasive mechanical ventilation duration before venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) on weaning from venovenous ECMO and survival. Methods: In a retrospective single-center study, we studied subjects with COVID-19 ARDS treated with VV-ECMO. The subjects were divided and analyzed according to the cut-off of NRS, invasive ventilation, and total duration of respiratory support. Results: We identified a cut-off of NRS duration of 4 days, invasive ventilation duration of 5 days, and total respiratory support duration of 8 days. Weaning from VV-ECMO was observed in 63% (15/24) of subjects with NRS duration ≤ 4 days and in 16% (4/25) of subjects with NRS > 4 days (P = .001), in 50% (17/34) of subjects with invasive ventilation duration ≤ 5 days, in 13% (2/15) of subjects with invasive ventilation duration > 5 days (P = .02), in 68% (13/19) of subjects with total support duration < 8 days, and in 20% (6/30) of subjects with total support duration > 8 days (P = .001). The survival probability at 200 days demonstrated a statistically significant difference in NRS and total support duration comparison (P = .001 and P = .004, respectively). We did not find a statistically significant survival difference according to invasive ventilation duration (P = .13). Conclusions: In our population, the increase in NRS and total support days before ECMO could hamper weaning from VV-ECMO support. However, due to the pandemic, the small sample size, and the lack of precise data on ventilation settings, caution should be exercised in universalizing these results.

Combining O2 High Flow Nasal or Non-Invasive Ventilation with Cooperative Sedation to Avoid Intubation in Early Diffuse Severe Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Especially in Immunocompromised or COVID Patients?

This overview addresses the pathophysiology of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS; conventional vs. COVID), the use of oxygen high flow (HFN) vs. noninvasive ventilation (NIV; conventional vs. helmet) and a multi-modal approach to avoid endotracheal intubation ("intubation"): low normal temperature, cooperative sedation, normalized systemic and microcirculation, anti-inflammation, reduced lung water, upright position, lowered intra-abdominal pressure. Increased ventilatory muscle activity ("respiratory drive") is observed in early ARDS, at variance with ventilatory fatigue observed in decompensated chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). This increased drive leads to impending then overt ventilatory failure. Therefore, muscle relaxation presents little rationale and should be replaced by lowering the excessive respiratory drive, increased work of breathing, continued or increased labored breathing, self-induced lung injury (SILI), i.e. preserving spontaneous breathing. As CMV is a lifesaver in the setting of failure but does not heal the lung, side-effects of intubation, controlled mechanical ventilation (CMV), paralysis and deep sedation are to be avoided. Additionally, critical care resources shortage requires practice changes. Therefore, NIV should be routine when addressing immune-compromised patients. The SARS-CoV2 pandemics extended this approach to most patients, which are immune-compromised: elderly, obese, diabetic, etc. The early COVID is a pulmonary vascular endothelial inflammatory disease requiring lower positive-end-expiratory pressure than the typical pulmonary alveolar epithelial inflammatory diffuse ARDS. This leads one to reassess a) the technique of NIV b) the sedation regimen facilitating continuous and extended NIV to avoid intubation. Autonomic, circulatory, respiratory, ventilatory physiology is hierarchized under HFN/NIV and cooperative sedation (dexmedetomidine, clonidine). A prospective randomized pilot trial, then a larger trial are required to ascertain our working hypotheses.

Predictive Factors of Oxygen Therapy Failure in Patients with COVID-19 in the Emergency Department

Background

Most patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia require oxygen therapy, including standard oxygen therapy and a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), in the Emergency Department (ED), and some patients develop respiratory failure. In the COVID-19 pandemic, the intensive care unit (ICU) was overburdening. Therefore, prioritizing patients who require intensive care is important. This study aimed to find predictors and develop a model to predict patients at risk of requiring an invasive mechanical ventilator (IMV) in the ED.

Methods

We performed a retrospective, single-center, observational study. Patients aged ≥18 years who were diagnosed with COVID-19 and required oxygen therapy in the ED were enrolled. Cox regression and Harrell's C-statistic were used to identifying predictors of requiring IMV. The predictive model was developed by calculated coefficients and the ventilator-free survival probability. The predictive model was internally validated using the bootstrapping method.

Results

We enrolled 333 patients, and 97 (29.1%) had required IMV. Most 66 (68.0%) failure cases were initial oxygen therapy with HFNC. Respiratory rate-oxygenation (ROX) index, interleukin-6 (IL-6) concentrations ≥20 pg/mL, the SOFA (Sequential Organ Failure Assessment) score without a respiratory score, and the patient's age were independent risk factors of requiring IMV. These factors were used to develop the predictive model. ROX index and the predictive model at 2 hours showed a good performance to predict oxygen therapy failure; the c-statistic was 0.814 (95% confidence level [CI] 0.767-0.861) and 0.901 (95% CI 0.873-0.928), respectively. ROX index ≤5.1 and the predictive model score ≥8 indicated a high probability of requiring IMV.

Conclusion

The COVID-19 pandemic was limited resources, ROX index, IL-6 ≥20 pg/mL, the SOFA score without a respiratory score, and the patient's age can be used to predict oxygen therapy failure. Moreover, the predictive model is good at discriminating patients at risk of requiring IMV and close monitoring.

COVID-19 and interstitial lung diseases: A multifaceted look at the relationship between the two diseases

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Although it has been a fatal disease for many patients, the development of treatment strategies and vaccines have progressed over the past 3 years, and our society has become able to accept COVID-19 as a manageable common disease. However, as COVID-19 sometimes causes pneumonia, post-COVID pulmonary fibrosis (PCPF), and worsening of preexisting interstitial lung diseases (ILDs), it is still a concern for pulmonary physicians. In this review, we have selected several topics regarding the relationships between ILDs and COVID-19. The pathogenesis of COVID-19-induced ILD is currently assumed based mainly on the evidence of other ILDs and has not been well elucidated specifically in the context of COVID-19. We have summarized what has been clarified to date and constructed a coherent story about the establishment and progress of the disease. We have also reviewed clinical information regarding ILDs newly induced or worsened by COVID-19 or anti-SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. Inflammatory and profibrotic responses induced by COVID-19 or vaccines have been thought to be a risk for de novo induction or worsening of ILDs, and this has been supported by the evidence obtained through clinical experience over the past 3 years. Although COVID-19 has become a mild disease in most cases, it is still worth looking back on the above-reviewed information to broaden our perspectives regarding the relationship between viral infection and ILD. As a representative etiology for severe viral pneumonia, further studies in this area are expected.

Acute dyspnea in the emergency department: a clinical review

Acute dyspnea represents one of the most frequent symptoms leading to emergency room evaluation. Its significant prognostic value warrants a careful evaluation. The differential diagnosis of dyspnea is complex due to the lack of specificity and the loose association between its intensity and the severity of the underlying pathological condition. The initial assessment of dyspnea calls for prompt diagnostic evaluation and identification of optimal monitoring strategy and provides information useful to allocate the patient to the most appropriate setting of care. In recent years, accumulating evidence indicated that lung ultrasound, along with echocardiography, represents the first rapid and non-invasive line of assessment that accurately differentiates heart, lung or extra-pulmonary involvement in patients with dyspnea. Moreover, non-invasive respiratory support modalities such as high-flow nasal oxygen and continuous positive airway pressure have aroused major clinical interest, in light of their efficacy and practicality to treat patients with dyspnea requiring ventilatory support, without using invasive mechanical ventilation. This clinical review is focused on the pathophysiology of acute dyspnea, on its clinical presentation and evaluation, including ultrasound-based diagnostic workup, and on available non-invasive modalities of respiratory support that may be required in patients with acute dyspnea secondary or associated with respiratory failure.

Timing of invasive mechanical ventilation and death in critically ill adults with COVID-19: A multicenter cohort study

PURPOSE

To investigate if the timing of initiation of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for critically ill patients with COVID-19 is associated with mortality.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data for this study were derived from a multicenter cohort study of critically ill adults with COVID-19 admitted to ICUs at 68 hospitals across the US from March 1 to July 1, 2020. We examined the association between early (ICU days 1-2) versus late (ICU days 3-7) initiation of IMV and time-to-death. Patients were followed until the first of hospital discharge, death, or 90 days. We adjusted for confounding using a multivariable Cox model.

RESULTS

Among the 1879 patients included in this analysis (1199 male [63.8%]; median age, 63 [IQR, 53-72] years), 1526 (81.2%) initiated IMV early and 353 (18.8%) initiated IMV late. A total of 644 of the 1526 patients (42.2%) in the early IMV group died, and 180 of the 353 (51.0%) in the late IMV group died (adjusted HR 0.77 [95% CI, 0.65-0.93]).

CONCLUSIONS

In critically ill adults with respiratory failure from COVID-19, early compared to late initiation of IMV is associated with reduced mortality.

Diaphragmatic Ultrasound Predictors of High-Flow Nasal Cannula Therapeutic Failure in Critically Ill Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia

OBJECTIVES

High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is frequently used in patients with acute respiratory failure, but there is limited evidence regarding predictors of therapeutic failure. The objective of this study was to assess diaphragmatic ultrasound criteria as predictors of failure to HFNC, defined as the need for orotracheal intubation or death.

METHODS

Prospective cohort study including adult patients consecutively admitted to the critical care unit, from July 24 to October 20, 2020, with respiratory failure secondary to SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia who required HFNC. After 12 hours of HFNC initiation we measured ROX index (ratio of SpO₂ /FiO₂ to respiratory rate), excursion and diaphragmatic contraction speed (diaphragmatic excursion/inspiratory time) by ultrasound, both in supine and prone position.

RESULTS

In total, 41 patients were analyzed, 25 succeeded and 16 failed HFNC therapy. At 12 hours, patients who succeeded HFNC therapy presented higher ROX index in supine position (9.8 [9.1-15.6] versus 5.4 [3.9-6.8], P < .01), and higher PaO₂ /FiO₂ ratio (186 [135-236] versus 117 [103-162] mmHg, P = .03). To predict therapeutic failure, the supine diaphragmatic contraction speed presented sensitivity of 89% and a specificity of 57%, while the ROX index presented a sensitivity of 92.8% and a specificity of 75%.

CONCLUSIONS

Diaphragmatic contraction speed by ultrasound emerges as a diagnostic complement to clinical tools to predict HFNC success. Future studies should confirm these results.

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.

Detailed Analysis of Primary Non-invasive Respiratory Support and Outcomes of Subjects With COVID-19 Acute Hypoxaemic Respiratory Failure

Background The role of non-invasive (continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or Non-invasive ventilation (NIV)) respiratory support (NIRS) as a primary oxygenation strategy for COVID-19 patients with acute severe hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF), as opposed to invasive mechanical ventilation (invasive-MV), is uncertain. While NIRS may prevent complications related to invasive MV, prolonged NIRS and delays in intubation may lead to adverse outcomes. This study was conducted to assess the role of NIRS in COVID-19 hypoxemic respiratory failure and to explore the variables associated with NRIS failure. Methods This is a single-center, observational study of two distinct waves of severe COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU. Patients initially managed with non-invasive respiratory support with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 in acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure were included. Demographics, comorbidities, admission laboratory variables, and ICU admission scores were extracted from electronic health records. Univariate and multiple logistic regression was used to identify predictive factors for invasive mechanical ventilation. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were used to summarise survival between the ventilatory and time-to-intubation groups. Results There were 291 patients, of which 232 were managed with NIRS as an initial ventilation strategy. There was a high incidence of failure (48.7%). Admission APACHE II score, SOFA score, HACOR score, ROX index, and PaO2/FiO2 were all predictive of NIRS failure. Daily (days 1-4) HACOR scores and ROX index measurements highly predicted NIRS failure. Late NIRS failure (>24 hours) was independently associated with increased mortality (44%). Conclusion NIRS is effective as first-line therapy for COVID-19 patients with AHRF. However, failure, particularly delayed failure, is associated with significant mortality. Early prediction of NIRS failure may prevent adverse outcomes.

Assessment of Long-Term Effects on Pulmonary Functions Between Severe and Non-Severe Convalescent COVID-19 Patients: A Single-Center Study in China

Objective

To explore the long-term effects of SARS-Cov-2 infection on the pulmonary function in the severe convalescent COVID-19 patients for 6 to 9 months follow-up in Beijing, China.

Methods

A total of 64 cases of COVID-19 patients were recruited for the study and discharged from the Beijing Ditan Hospital, Capital Medical University, for 6 to 9 months. COVID-19 patients were divided into non-severe (mild and moderate) and severe groups. The follow-up investigated the lung function tests, the novel coronavirus antibody (IgM and IgG), chest CT and blood tests.

Results

About 25.00% (16/64) patients had pulmonary ventilation dysfunction and 35.9% (23/64) had diffusion dysfunction. In the severe group, 56.50% (13/23) individuals showed decreased diffusion function. The diffusion dysfunction of the severe group was significantly decreased than the non-severe group (P = 0.01). Among 56 cases, the positive rate of IgG titers was 73.2% (41/56). The result of chest CT showed 55.36% (31/56) cases in nodules, 44.64% (25/56) in strip-like changes, 37.5% (21/56) in-ground glass shadow, and 5.36% (3/56) in grid shadow, which was significantly different between the severe group and the non-severe group. Patients tended to have ground glass changes in the severe group while nodules in the non-severe group.

Conclusion

For the 6 to 9 months in convalescent COVID-19 patients, 56.50% (13/23) of severe patients had pulmonary diffusion dysfunction. Convalescent COVID-19 patients should have their pulmonary function regularly tested, especially those with severe illness.

Deciding When to Intubate a COVID-19 Patient

Background

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is one of the most significant challenges for healthcare providers, particularly in the critical care setting. The timing of intubation in COVID-19 patients seems to be challenging. Therefore, we aimed to investigate how it may have a survival benefit, and we determined which clinical characteristics were associated with outcomes.

Methods

This cross-sectional study was conducted in the Imam Khomeini Hospital Complex. We randomly selected patients admitted to intensive care units and, based on intubation status, categorized them into three subgroups (early, late, and not intubated). Early intubation is defined as intubation within 48 hours of ICU admission, and late intubation is defined as intubation after 48 hours of ICU admission.

Results

Early-intubated patients were more likely to have dyspnea than late-intubated patients, and late-intubated patients had a higher mean heart rate than early-intubated patients. The neutrophil/lymphocyte ratio was significantly (P < 0.05) lower in not-intubated patients than in other patients. There was no difference in NLR between early- and late-intubated patients. Mean serum creatine phosphokinase and troponin I levels were higher in late-intubated patients than in early- and not-intubated patients. Early-intubated patients had a lower ROX index than late-intubated patients. Patients with higher scores of APACHE 2, respiratory rates, and neutrophil to lymphocyte ratio were more likely to be intubated. Increasing APACHE and SOFA scores were associated with decreased odds of survival.

Conclusions

There were no statistically significant differences in total mortality between early- and late-intubated patients. APACHE 2 scores, NLR, RR, and history of ischemic heart disease are some of the appropriate predictors of intubation. Higher respiratory rates (tachypnea) can be an indicator of early intubation. The ROX index is one of the most sensitive and capable tools for predicting intubation. Intubation status is a potent predictor of in-hospital mortality.

SIMEU position paper on non-invasive respiratory support in COVID-19 pneumonia

The rapid worldwide spread of the Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) crisis has put health systems under pressure to a level never experienced before, putting intensive care units in a position to fail to meet an exponentially growing demand. The main clinical feature of the disease is a progressive arterial hypoxemia which rapidly leads to ARDS which makes the use of intensive care and mechanical ventilation almost inevitable. The difficulty of health systems to guarantee a corresponding supply of resources in intensive care, together with the uncertain results reported in the literature with respect to patients who undergo early conventional ventilation, make the search for alternative methods of oxygenation and ventilation and potentially preventive of the need for tracheal intubation, such as non-invasive respiratory support techniques particularly valuable. In this context, the Emergency Department, located between the area outside the hospital and hospital ward and ICU, assumes the role of a crucial junction, due to the possibility of applying these techniques at a sufficiently early stage and being able to rapidly evaluate their effectiveness. This position paper describes the indications for the use of non-invasive respiratory support techniques in respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19-related pneumonia, formulated by the Non-invasive Ventilation Faculty of the Italian Society of Emergency Medicine (SIMEU) on the base of what is available in the literature and on the authors' direct experience. Rationale, literature, tips & tricks, resources, risks and expected results, and patient interaction will be discussed for each one of the escalating non-invasive respiratory techniques: standard oxygen, HFNCO, CPAP, NIPPV, and awake self-repositioning. The final chapter describes our suggested approach to the failing patient.

Association between timing of intubation and clinical outcomes of critically ill patients: A meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Optimal timing of intubation is controversial. We attempted to investigate the association between timing of intubation and clinical outcomes of critically ill patients.

METHODS

PubMed was systematically searched for studies reporting on mortality of critically ill patients undergoing early versus late intubation. Studies involving patients with new coronavirus disease (COVID-19) were excluded because a relevant meta-analysis has been published. "Early" intubation was defined according to the authors of the included studies. All-cause mortality was the primary outcome. Pooled risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random effects model. The meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021284850).

RESULTS

In total, 27 studies involving 15,441 intubated patients (11,943 early, 3498 late) were included. All-cause mortality was lower in patients undergoing early versus late intubation (7338 deaths; 45.8% versus 53.5%; RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.87-0.97; p = 0.001). This was also the case in the sensitivity analysis of studies defining "early" as intubation within 24 h from admission in the intensive care unit (6279 deaths; 45.8% versus 53.6%; RR 0.93, 95% CI 0.89-0.98; p = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Avoiding late intubation may be associated with lower mortality in critically ill patients without COVID-19.

Trajectories of hypoxemia and pulmonary mechanics of COVID-19 ARDS in the NorthCARDS dataset

BACKGROUND

Understanding heterogeneity seen in patients with COVIDARDS and comparing to non-COVIDARDS may inform tailored treatments.

METHODS

A multidisciplinary team of frontline clinicians and data scientists worked to create the Northwell COVIDARDS dataset (NorthCARDS) leveraging over 11,542 COVID-19 hospital admissions. The data was then summarized to examine descriptive differences based on clinically meaningful categories of lung compliance, and to examine trends in oxygenation.

FINDINGS

Of the 1536 COVIDARDS patients in the NorthCARDS dataset, there were 531 (34.6%) who had very low lung compliance (< 20 ml/cmH₂O), 970 (63.2%) with low-normal compliance (20-50 ml/cmH₂O), and 35 (2.2%) with high lung compliance (> 50 ml/cmH₂O). The very low compliance group had double the median time to intubation compared to the low-normal group (107.3 h (IQR 25.8, 239.2) vs. 39.5 h (IQR 5.4, 91.6)). Overall, 68.8% (n = 1057) of the patients died during hospitalization. In comparison to non-COVIDARDS reports, there were less patients in the high compliance category (2.2% vs. 12%, compliance ≥ 50 mL/cmH20), and more patients with P/F ≤ 150 (59.8% vs. 45.6%). There is a statistically significant correlation between compliance and P/F ratio. The Oxygenation Index is the highest in the very low compliance group (12.51, SD(6.15)), and lowest in high compliance group (8.78, SD(4.93)).

CONCLUSIONS

The respiratory system compliance distribution of COVIDARDS is similar to non-COVIDARDS. In some patients, there may be a relation between time to intubation and duration of high levels of supplemental oxygen treatment on trajectory of lung compliance.

Impact of Noninvasive Respiratory Support in Patients With COVID-19 Requiring V-V ECMO

The impact of the duration of noninvasive respiratory support (RS) including high-flow nasal cannula and noninvasive ventilation before the initiation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is unknown. We reviewed data of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) treated with V-V ECMO at two high-volume tertiary care centers. Survival analysis was used to compare the effect of duration of RS on liberation from ECMO. A total of 78 patients required ECMO and the median duration of RS and invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) before ECMO was 2 days (interquartile range [IQR]: 0, 6) and 2.5 days (IQR: 1, 5), respectively. The median duration of ECMO support was 24 days (IQR: 11, 73) and 59.0% (N = 46) remained alive at the time of censure. Patients that received RS for ≥3 days were significantly less likely to be liberated from ECMO (HR: 0.46; 95% CI: 0.26-0.83), IMV (HR: 0.42; 95% CI: 0.20-0.89) or be discharged from the hospital (HR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.27-0.99) compared to patients that received RS for <3 days. There was no difference in hospital mortality between the groups (HR: 1.12; 95% CI: 0.56-2.26). These relationships persisted after adjustment for age, gender, and duration of IMV. Prolonged duration of RS before ECMO may result in lung injury and worse subsequent outcomes.

Residual lung damage following ARDS in COVID-19 ICU survivors

BACKGROUND

Coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome (COVID-19 ARDS) is a disease that often requires invasive ventilation. Little is known about COVID-19 ARDS sequelae. We assessed the mid-term lung status of COVID-19 survivors and investigated factors associated with pulmonary sequelae.

METHODS

All adult COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit from 25th February to 27th April 2020 were included. Lung function was evaluated through chest CT scan and pulmonary function tests (PFT). Logistic regression was used to identify predictors of persisting lung alterations.

RESULTS

Forty-nine patients (75%) completed lung assessment. Chest CT scan was performed after a median (interquartile range) time of 97 (89-105) days, whilst PFT after 142 (133-160) days. The median age was 58 (52-65) years and most patients were male (90%). The median duration of mechanical ventilation was 11 (6-16) days. Median tidal volume/ideal body weight (TV/IBW) was 6.8 (5.71-7.67) ml/Kg. 59% and 63% of patients showed radiological and functional lung sequelae, respectively. The diffusion capacity of carbon monoxide (DL_CO ) was reduced by 59%, with a median per cent of predicted DL_CO of 72.1 (57.9-93.9) %. Mean TV/IBW during invasive ventilation emerged as an independent predictor of persistent CT scan abnormalities, whilst the duration of mechanical ventilation was an independent predictor of both CT and PFT abnormalities. The extension of lung involvement at hospital admission (evaluated through Radiographic Assessment of Lung Edema, RALE score) independently predicted the risk of persistent alterations in PFTs.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the extent of lung parenchymal involvement and mechanical ventilation protocols predict morphological and functional lung abnormalities months after COVID-19.

Impact of time to intubation on mortality and pulmonary sequelae in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a prospective cohort study

QUESTION

We evaluated whether the time between first respiratory support and intubation of patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) due to COVID-19 was associated with mortality or pulmonary sequelae.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Prospective cohort of critical COVID-19 patients on IMV. Patients were classified as early intubation if they were intubated within the first 48 h from the first respiratory support or delayed intubation if they were intubated later. Surviving patients were evaluated after hospital discharge.

RESULTS

We included 205 patients (140 with early IMV and 65 with delayed IMV). The median [p25;p75] age was 63 [56.0; 70.0] years, and 74.1% were male. The survival analysis showed a significant increase in the risk of mortality in the delayed group with an adjusted hazard ratio (HR) of 2.45 (95% CI 1.29-4.65). The continuous predictor time to IMV showed a nonlinear association with the risk of in-hospital mortality. A multivariate mortality model showed that delay of IMV was a factor associated with mortality (HR of 2.40; 95% CI 1.42-4.1). During follow-up, patients in the delayed group showed a worse DLCO (mean difference of - 10.77 (95% CI - 18.40 to - 3.15), with a greater number of affected lobes (+ 1.51 [95% CI 0.89-2.13]) and a greater TSS (+ 4.35 [95% CI 2.41-6.27]) in the chest CT scan.

CONCLUSIONS

Among critically ill patients with COVID-19 who required IMV, the delay in intubation from the first respiratory support was associated with an increase in hospital mortality and worse pulmonary sequelae during follow-up.

Ventilator-Associated Lung Injury

Ventilatory support, while life saving, can also cause or aggravate lung injury through several mechanisms which are encompassed within ventilator-associated lung injury (VALI). The important realizationin the acute respiratory distress syndrome that the “baby” lung resided in non-dependent areas led to the conceptualization of “lung rest” to reduce stress and strain to exposed alveolar units. We discuss concepts and mechanisms within VALI that ultimately induce maladaptive lung responses, as well as, current and future management strategies to detect and mitigate VALI at the bedside.

Triage and monitoring of COVID-19 patients in intensive care using unsupervised machine learning

BACKGROUND

We designed an algorithm to assess COVID-19 patients severity and dynamic intubation needs and predict their length of stay using the breathing frequency (BF) and oxygen saturation (SpO₂) signals.

METHODS

We recorded the BF and SpO₂ signals for confirmed COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU of a teaching hospital during both the first and subsequent outbreaks of the pandemic in France. An unsupervised machine-learning algorithm (the Gaussian mixture model) was applied to the patients' data for clustering. The algorithm's robustness was ensured by comparing its results against actual intubation rates. We predicted intubation rates using the algorithm every hour, thus conducting a severity evaluation. We designed a S₂₄ severity score that represented the patient's severity over the previous 24 h; the validity of MS₂₄, the maximum S₂₄ score, was checked against rates of intubation risk and prolonged ICU stay.

RESULTS

Our sample included 279 patients. . The unsupervised clustering had an accuracy rate of 87.8% for intubation recognition (AUC = 0.94, True Positive Rate 86.5%, true Negative Rate 90.9%). The S₂₄ score of intubated patients was significantly higher than that of non-intubated patients at 48 h before intubation. The MS₂₄ score allowed for the distinguishing between three severity levels with an increased risk of intubation: green (3.4%), orange (37%), and red (77%). A MS₂₄ score over 40 was highly predictive of an ICU stay greater than 5 days at an accuracy rate of 81.0% (AUC = 0.87).

CONCLUSIONS

Our algorithm uses simple signals and seems to efficiently visualize the patients' respiratory situations, meaning that it has the potential to assist staffs' in decision-making. Additionally, real-time computation is easy to implement.

Feasibility and Clinical Outcomes of a Step Up Noninvasive Respiratory Support Strategy in Patients with Severe COVID-19 Pneumonia

The best noninvasive respiratory strategy in patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia is still discussed. We aimed at assessing the rate of endotracheal intubation (ETI) in patients treated with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) if CPAP failed. Secondary outcomes were in-hospital mortality and in-hospital length of stay (LOS). A retrospective, observational, multicenter study was conducted in intermediate-high dependency respiratory units of two Italian university hospitals. Consecutive patients with COVID-19 treated with CPAP were enrolled. Thoraco-abdominal asynchrony or hemodynamic instability led to ETI. Patients showing SpO₂ ≤ 94%, respiratory rate ≥ 30 bpm or accessory muscle activation on CPAP received NIV. Respiratory distress and desaturation despite NIV eventually led to ETI. 156 patients were included. The overall rate of ETI was 30%, mortality 18% and median LOS 24 (17–32) days. Among patients that failed CPAP (n = 63), 28% were intubated, while the remaining 72% received NIV, of which 65% were intubated. Patients intubated after CPAP showed lower baseline PaO₂/FiO₂, lower lymphocyte counts and higher D-dimer values compared with patients intubated after CPAP + NIV. Mortality was 22% with CPAP + ETI, and 20% with CPAP + NIV + ETI. In the case of CPAP failure, a NIV trial appears feasible, does not deteriorate respiratory status and may reduce the need for ETI in COVID-19 patients.

COVID-19 ARDS: Points to Be Considered in Mechanical Ventilation and Weaning

The COVID-19 disease can cause hypoxemic respiratory failure due to ARDS, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. Although early studies reported that COVID-19-associated ARDS has distinctive features from ARDS of other causes, recent observational studies have demonstrated that ARDS related to COVID-19 shares common clinical characteristics and respiratory system mechanics with ARDS of other origins. Therefore, mechanical ventilation in these patients should be based on strategies aiming to mitigate ventilator-induced lung injury. Assisted mechanical ventilation should be applied early in the course of mechanical ventilation by considering evaluation and minimizing factors associated with patient-inflicted lung injury. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation should be considered in selected patients with refractory hypoxia not responding to conventional ventilation strategies. This review highlights the current and evolving practice in managing mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS related to COVID-19.

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.

High risk of patient self-inflicted lung injury in COVID-19 with frequently encountered spontaneous breathing patterns: a computational modelling study

BACKGROUND

There is on-going controversy regarding the potential for increased respiratory effort to generate patient self-inflicted lung injury (P-SILI) in spontaneously breathing patients with COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure. However, direct clinical evidence linking increased inspiratory effort to lung injury is scarce. We adapted a computational simulator of cardiopulmonary pathophysiology to quantify the mechanical forces that could lead to P-SILI at different levels of respiratory effort. In accordance with recent data, the simulator parameters were manually adjusted to generate a population of 10 patients that recapitulate clinical features exhibited by certain COVID-19 patients, i.e., severe hypoxaemia combined with relatively well-preserved lung mechanics, being treated with supplemental oxygen.

RESULTS

Simulations were conducted at tidal volumes (VT) and respiratory rates (RR) of 7 ml/kg and 14 breaths/min (representing normal respiratory effort) and at VT/RR of 7/20, 7/30, 10/14, 10/20 and 10/30 ml/kg / breaths/min. While oxygenation improved with higher respiratory efforts, significant increases in multiple indicators of the potential for lung injury were observed at all higher VT/RR combinations tested. Pleural pressure swing increased from 12.0 ± 0.3 cmH2O at baseline to 33.8 ± 0.4 cmH2O at VT/RR of 7 ml/kg/30 breaths/min and to 46.2 ± 0.5 cmH2O at 10 ml/kg/30 breaths/min. Transpulmonary pressure swing increased from 4.7 ± 0.1 cmH2O at baseline to 17.9 ± 0.3 cmH2O at VT/RR of 7 ml/kg/30 breaths/min and to 24.2 ± 0.3 cmH2O at 10 ml/kg/30 breaths/min. Total lung strain increased from 0.29 ± 0.006 at baseline to 0.65 ± 0.016 at 10 ml/kg/30 breaths/min. Mechanical power increased from 1.6 ± 0.1 J/min at baseline to 12.9 ± 0.2 J/min at VT/RR of 7 ml/kg/30 breaths/min, and to 24.9 ± 0.3 J/min at 10 ml/kg/30 breaths/min. Driving pressure increased from 7.7 ± 0.2 cmH2O at baseline to 19.6 ± 0.2 cmH2O at VT/RR of 7 ml/kg/30 breaths/min, and to 26.9 ± 0.3 cmH2O at 10 ml/kg/30 breaths/min.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that the forces generated by increased inspiratory effort commonly seen in COVID-19 acute hypoxaemic respiratory failure are comparable with those that have been associated with ventilator-induced lung injury during mechanical ventilation. Respiratory efforts in these patients should be carefully monitored and controlled to minimise the risk of lung injury.

Covid-19 severe hypoxemic pneumonia: A clinical experience using high-flow nasal oxygen therapy as first-line management

PURPOSE

To report a French experience in patients admitted to Intensive Care Unit (ICU) for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) requiring high fractional concentration of inspired oxygen supported by high flow nasal cannula (HFNC) as first-line therapy.

METHODS

Retrospective cohort study conducted in two ICUs of a French university hospital. All consecutive patients admitted during 28-days after the first admission for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia were screened. Demographic, clinical, respiratory support, specific therapeutics, ICU length-of-stay and survival data were collected.

RESULTS

Data of 43 patients were analyzed: mainly men (72%), median age 61 (51-69) years, median body mass index of 28 (25-31) kg/m², median simplified acute physiology score (SAPS II) of 29 (22-37) and median PaO₂/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂) (P/F) ratio of 146 (100-189) mmHg. HFNC was initiated at ICU admission in 76% of patients. Median flow was 50 (45-50) L/min and median FiO2 was 0.6 (0.5-0.8). 79% of patients presented at least one comorbidity, mainly hypertension (58%). At day (D) 28, 32% of patients required invasive mechanical ventilation, 3 patients died in ICU. Risk factors for intubation were diabetes (10% vs. 43%, P=0.04) and extensive lesions on chest computed tomography (CT) (P=0.023). Patients with more than 25% of lesions on chest CT were more frequently intubated during ICU stay (P=0.012). At ICU admission (D1), patients with higher SAPS II and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) scores (respectively 39 (28-50) vs. 27 (22-31), P=0.0031 and 5 (2-8) vs. 2 (2-2.2), P=0.0019), and a lower P/F ratio (98 (63-109) vs. 178 (126-206), P=0.0005) were more frequently intubated. Among non-intubated patients, the median lowest P/F was 131 (85-180) mmHg. Four caregivers had to stop working following coronavirus 2 contamination, but did not require hospitalization.

CONCLUSION

Our clinical experience supports the use of HFNC as first line-therapy in patients with SARS-COV-2 pneumonia for whom face mask oxygen does not provide adequate respiratory support.

Implications of early respiratory support strategies on disease progression in critical COVID-19: a matched subanalysis of the prospective RISC-19-ICU cohort

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty about the optimal respiratory support strategies in critically ill COVID-19 patients is widespread. While the risks and benefits of noninvasive techniques versus early invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) are intensely debated, actual evidence is lacking. We sought to assess the risks and benefits of different respiratory support strategies, employed in intensive care units during the first months of the COVID-19 pandemic on intubation and intensive care unit (ICU) mortality rates.

METHODS

Subanalysis of a prospective, multinational registry of critically ill COVID-19 patients. Patients were subclassified into standard oxygen therapy ≥10 L/min (SOT), high-flow oxygen therapy (HFNC), noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation (NIV), and early IMV, according to the respiratory support strategy employed at the day of admission to ICU. Propensity score matching was performed to ensure comparability between groups.

RESULTS

Initially, 1421 patients were assessed for possible study inclusion. Of these, 351 patients (85 SOT, 87 HFNC, 87 NIV, and 92 IMV) remained eligible for full analysis after propensity score matching. 55% of patients initially receiving noninvasive respiratory support required IMV. The intubation rate was lower in patients initially ventilated with HFNC and NIV compared to those who received SOT (SOT: 64%, HFNC: 52%, NIV: 49%, p = 0.025). Compared to the other respiratory support strategies, NIV was associated with a higher overall ICU mortality (SOT: 18%, HFNC: 20%, NIV: 37%, IMV: 25%, p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

In this cohort of critically ill patients with COVID-19, a trial of HFNC appeared to be the most balanced initial respiratory support strategy, given the reduced intubation rate and comparable ICU mortality rate. Nonetheless, considering the uncertainty and stress associated with the COVID-19 pandemic, SOT and early IMV represented safe initial respiratory support strategies. The presented findings, in agreement with classic ARDS literature, suggest that NIV should be avoided whenever possible due to the elevated ICU mortality risk.

Stratifying Deterioration Risk by Acuity at Admission Offers Triage Insights for Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients

OBJECTIVES

Triaging patients at admission to determine subsequent deterioration risk can be difficult. This is especially true of coronavirus disease 2019 patients, some of whom experience significant physiologic deterioration due to dysregulated immune response following admission. A well-established acuity measure, the Rothman Index, is evaluated for stratification of patients at admission into high or low risk of subsequent deterioration.

DESIGN

Multicenter retrospective study.

SETTING

One academic medical center in Connecticut, and three community hospitals in Connecticut and Maryland.

PATIENTS

Three thousand four hundred ninety-nine coronavirus disease 2019 and 14,658 noncoronavirus disease 2019 adult patients admitted to a medical service between January 1, 2020, and September 15, 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

None.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

Performance of the Rothman Index at admission to predict in-hospital mortality or ICU utilization for both general medical and coronavirus disease 2019 populations was evaluated using the area under the curve. Precision and recall for mortality prediction were calculated, high- and low-risk thresholds were determined, and patients meeting threshold criteria were characterized. The Rothman Index at admission has good to excellent discriminatory performance for in-hospital mortality in the coronavirus disease 2019 (area under the curve, 0.81-0.84) and noncoronavirus disease 2019 (area under the curve, 0.90-0.92) populations. We show that for a given admission acuity, the risk of deterioration for coronavirus disease 2019 patients is significantly higher than for noncoronavirus disease 2019 patients. At admission, Rothman Index-based thresholds segregate the majority of patients into either high- or low-risk groups; high-risk groups have mortality rates of 34-45% (coronavirus disease 2019) and 17-25% (noncoronavirus disease 2019), whereas low-risk groups have mortality rates of 2-5% (coronavirus disease 2019) and 0.2-0.4% (noncoronavirus disease 2019). Similarly large differences in ICU utilization are also found.

CONCLUSIONS

Acuity level at admission may support rapid and effective risk triage. Notably, in-hospital mortality risk associated with a given acuity at admission is significantly higher for coronavirus disease 2019 patients than for noncoronavirus disease 2019 patients. This insight may help physicians more effectively triage coronavirus disease 2019 patients, guiding level of care decisions and resource allocation.

Functional pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2-induced acute lung injury and clinical implications

The worldwide pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has resulted in over 84,407,000 cases, with over 1,800,000 deaths when this paper was submitted, with comorbidities such as gender, race, age, body mass, diabetes, and hypertension greatly exacerbating mortality. This review will analyze the rapidly increasing knowledge of COVID-19-induced lung pathophysiology. Although controversial, the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) associated with COVID-19 (CARDS) seems to present as two distinct phenotypes: type L and type H. The "L" refers to low elastance, ventilation/perfusion ratio, lung weight, and recruitability, and the "H" refers to high pulmonary elastance, shunt, edema, and recruitability. However, the LUNG-SAFE (Large Observational Study to Understand the Global Impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Failure) and ESICM (European Society of Intensive Care Medicine) Trials Groups have shown that ∼13% of the mechanically ventilated non-COVID-19 ARDS patients have the type-L phenotype. Other studies have shown that CARDS and ARDS respiratory mechanics overlap and that standard ventilation strategies apply to these patients. The mechanisms causing alterations in pulmonary perfusion could be caused by some combination of 1) renin-angiotensin system dysregulation, 2) thrombosis caused by loss of endothelial barrier, 3) endothelial dysfunction causing loss of hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction perfusion control, and 4) hyperperfusion of collapsed lung tissue that has been directly measured and supported by a computational model. A flowchart has been constructed highlighting the need for personalized and adaptive ventilation strategies, such as the time-controlled adaptive ventilation method, to set and adjust the airway pressure release ventilation mode, which recently was shown to be effective at improving oxygenation and reducing inspiratory fraction of oxygen, vasopressors, and sedation in patients with COVID-19.

A Case-Control Study of Prone Positioning in Awake and Nonintubated Hospitalized Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients

To determine the association between prone positioning in nonintubated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 and frequency of invasive mechanical ventilation or inhospital mortality.

DESIGN

A nested case-matched control analysis.

SETTING

Three hospital sites in Bronx, NY.

PATIENTS

Adult coronavirus disease 2019 patients admitted between March 1, 2020, and April 1, 2020. We excluded patients with do-not-intubate orders. Cases were defined by invasive mechanical ventilation or inhospital mortality. Each case was matched with two controls based on age, gender, admission date, and hospital length of stay greater than index time of matched case via risk-set sampling. The presence of nonintubated proning was identified from provider documentation.

INTERVENTION

Nonintubated proning documented prior to invasive mechanical ventilation or inhospital mortality for cases or prior to corresponding index time for matched controls.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We included 600 patients, 41 (6.8%) underwent nonintubated proning. Cases had lower Spo2/Fio2 ratios prior to invasive mechanical ventilation or inhospital mortality compared with controls (case median, 97 [interquartile range, 90-290] vs control median, 404 [interquartile range, 296-452]). Although most providers (58.5%) documented immediate improvement in oxygenation status after initiating nonintubated proning, there was no difference in worst Spo2/Fio2 ratios before and after nonintubated proning in both case and control (case median Spo2/Fio2 ratio difference, 3 [interquartile range, -3 to 8] vs control median Spo2/Fio2 ratio difference, 0 [interquartile range, -3 to 50]). In the univariate analysis, patients who underwent nonintubated proning were 2.57 times more likely to require invasive mechanical ventilation or experience inhospital mortality (hazard ratio, 2.57; 95% CI, 1.17-5.64; p = 0.02). Following adjustment for patient level differences, we found no association between nonintubated proning and invasive mechanical ventilation or inhospital mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.34-2.45; p = 0.86).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant association with reduced risk of invasive mechanical ventilation or inhospital mortality after adjusting for baseline severity of illness and oxygenation status.