The Nature of Recruitment and De-Recruitment and Its Implications for Management of ARDS

Incidence, characteristics and risk factors for alveolar recruitment maneuver-related hypotension in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection

BACKGROUND

Alveolar recruitment maneuvers (ARMs) may lead to transient hypotension, but the clinical characteristics of this induced hypotension are poorly understood. We investigated the characteristics of ARM-related hypotension in patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection.

AIM

To investigate the characteristics of ARM-related hypotension in patients who underwent laparoscopic colorectal cancer resection.

METHODS

This was a secondary analysis of the PROtective Ventilation using Open Lung approach Or Not trial and included 140 subjects. An ARM was repeated every 30 min during intraoperative mechanical ventilation. The primary endpoint was ARM-related hypotension, defined as a mean arterial pressure (MAP) < 60 mmHg during an ARM or within 5 min after an ARM. The risk factors for hypotension were identified. The peri-ARM changes in blood pressure were analyzed for the first three ARMs (ARM1,2,3) and the last ARM (ARMlast).

RESULTS

Thirty-four subjects (24.3%) developed ARM-related hypotension. Of all 1027 ARMs, 37 (3.61%) induced hypotension. More ARMs under nonpneumoperitoneum (33/349, 9.46%) than under pneumoperitoneum conditions (4/678, 0.59%) induced hypotension (P < 0.01). The incidence of hypotension was higher at ARM1 points than at non-ARM1 points (18/135, 13.3% vs 19/892, 2.1%; P < 0.01). The median percentage decrease in the MAP at ARM1 was 14%. Age ≥ 74 years, blood loss ≥ 150 mL and peak inspiratory pressure under pneumoperitoneum < 24 cm H2O were risk factors for ARM-related hypotension.

CONCLUSION

When the ARM was repeated intraoperatively, a quarter of subjects developed ARM-related hypotension, but only 3.61% of ARMs induced hypotension. ARM-related hypotension most occurred in a hemodynamically unstable state or a hypovolemic state, and in elderly subjects. Fortunately, ARMs that were performed under pneumoperitoneum conditions had less impact on blood pressure.

Management of refractory hypoxemia using recruitment maneuvers and rescue therapies: A comprehensive review

Refractory hypoxemia in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome treated with mechanical ventilation is one of the most challenging conditions in human and veterinary intensive care units. When a conventional lung protective approach fails to restore adequate oxygenation to the patient, the use of recruitment maneuvers and positive end-expiratory pressure to maximize alveolar recruitment, improve gas exchange and respiratory mechanics, while reducing the risk of ventilator-induced lung injury has been suggested in people as the open lung approach. Although the proposed physiological rationale of opening and keeping open previously collapsed or obstructed airways is sound, the technique for doing so, as well as the potential benefits regarding patient outcome are highly controversial in light of recent randomized controlled trials. Moreover, a variety of alternative therapies that provide even less robust evidence have been investigated, including prone positioning, neuromuscular blockade, inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and unconventional ventilatory modes such as airway pressure release ventilation. With the exception of prone positioning, these modalities are limited by their own balance of risks and benefits, which can be significantly influenced by the practitioner's experience. This review explores the rationale, evidence, advantages and disadvantages of each of these therapies as well as available methods to identify suitable candidates for recruitment maneuvers, with a summary on their application in veterinary medicine. Undoubtedly, the heterogeneous and evolving nature of acute respiratory distress syndrome and individual lung phenotypes call for a personalized approach using new non-invasive bedside assessment tools, such as electrical impedance tomography, lung ultrasound, and the recruitment-to-inflation ratio to assess lung recruitability. Data available in human medicine provide valuable insights that could, and should, be used to improve the management of veterinary patients with severe respiratory failure with respect to their intrinsic anatomy and physiology.

Respiratory Drive, Dyspnea, and Silent Hypoxemia: A Physiological Review in the Context of COVID-19

Infection with SARS-CoV-2 in select individuals results in viral sepsis, pneumonia, and hypoxemic respiratory failure, collectively known as COVID-19. In the early months of the pandemic, the combination of novel disease presentation, enormous surges of critically ill patients, and severity of illness lent to early observations and pronouncements regarding COVID-19 that could not be scientifically validated owing to crisis circumstances. One of these was a phenomenon referred to as "happy hypoxia." Widely discussed in the lay press, it was thought to represent a novel and perplexing phenomenon: severe hypoxemia coupled with the absence of respiratory distress and dyspnea. Silent hypoxemia is the preferred term describing an apparent lack of distress in the presence of hypoxemia. However, the phenomenon is well known among respiratory physiologists as hypoxic ventilatory decline. Silent hypoxemia can be explained by physiologic mechanisms governing the control of breathing, breathing perception, and cardiovascular compensation. This narrative review examines silent hypoxemia during COVID-19 as well as hypotheses that viral infection of the central and peripheral nervous system may be implicated. Moreover, the credulous embrace of happy hypoxia and the novel hypotheses proposed to explain it has exposed significant misunderstandings among clinicians regarding the physiologic mechanisms governing both the control of breathing and the modulation of breathing sensations. Therefore, a substantial focus of this paper is to provide an in-depth review of these topics.

Mechanical Ventilation in ARDS: Quo Vadis?

Contemplating the future should be grounded in history. The rise of post-polio ICUs was inextricably related to mechanical ventilation. Critically ill patients who developed acute respiratory failure often had "congestive atelectasis" (ie, a term used to describe ARDS prior to 1967). Initial mechanical ventilation strategies for treating this condition and others inadvertently led to ventilator-induced lung injury. Both injurious ventilation and later use of overly cautious weaning practices resulted from both limited technology and understanding of ARDS and other aspects of critical illness. The resulting misperceptions, misconceptions, and missed opportunities took decades to rectify and in some instances still persist. This suggests a reluctance to acknowledge that all therapeutic strategies reflect the historical period in which they were developed and the corresponding limited understanding of ARDS pathophysiology at that time. We are at the threshold of a revolutionary moment in critical care. The confluence of enormous clinical data production, massive computing power, advances in understanding the biomolecular and genetic aspects of critical illness, and the emergence of neural networks will have enormous impact on how critical care is practiced in the decades to come. Therefore, it is imperative we understand the long-crooked path needed to reach the era of protective ventilation in order to avoid similar mistakes moving forward. The emerging era is as difficult to fathom as our current practices and technologies were to those practicing 60 years ago. This review explores the history of mechanical ventilation in treating ARDS, describes current protective ventilation strategies, and speculates how ARDS management might look 20 years from now.

Lung and diaphragm protective ventilation: a synthesis of recent data

INTRODUCTION

: To adhere to the Hippocratic Oath, to "first, do no harm", we need to make every effort to minimize the adverse effects of mechanical ventilation. Our understanding of the mechanisms of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) and ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction (VIDD) has increased in recent years. Research focuses now on methods to monitor lung stress and inhomogeneity and targets we should aim for when setting the ventilator. In parallel, efforts to promote early assisted ventilation to prevent VIDD have revealed new challenges, such as titrating inspiratory effort and synchronizing the mechanical with the patients' spontaneous breaths, while at the same time adhering to lung-protective targets.

AREAS COVERED

This is a narrative review of the key mechanisms contributing to VILI and VIDD and the methods currently available to evaluate and mitigate the risk of lung and diaphragm injury.

EXPERT OPINION

Implementing lung and diaphragm protective ventilation requires individualizing the ventilator settings, and this can only be accomplished by exploiting in everyday clinical practice the tools available to monitor lung stress and inhomogeneity, inspiratory effort, and patient-ventilator interaction.

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.