Respiratory Mechanics of COVID-19- versus Non-COVID-19-associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Haudebourg AF
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7365370 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7605202 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7427374 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7831959 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mesenchymal stromal cells are a potential therapeutic for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome due to COVID-19, with pleiotropic immunomodulatory and reparative properties.This study investigated the safety and efficacy of ORBCEL-C (CD362 enriched umbilical cord-derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells) in this patient population.
2023-06-20 | GSE231660 | GEO
Project description:BackgroundDifferences 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 (CRS), oxygenation parameters and ventilatory ratio (VR) in patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 pulmonary ARDS matched on oxygenation.Methods135 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.ResultsThe two groups were similar on initial oxygenation. COVID-19 patients had a higher body mass index, higher CRS at day 1 (median [IQR], 35 [28-44] vs 32 [26-38] ml cmH2O-1, p = 0.037). At day 1, CRS 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 CRS 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, CRS 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).ConclusionsFor a similar initial oxygenation, COVID-19 ARDS initially differs from classical ARDS by a higher CRS, dissociated from oxygenation. CRS become similar for patients remaining on mechanical ventilation during the first week of evolution, but oxygenation becomes lower in COVID-19 patients.Trial registrationclinicaltrials.gov NCT04385004.
| S-EPMC8280689 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the lung mechanics and outcomes between COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome.MethodsWe combined data from two randomized trials in acute respiratory distress syndrome, one including only COVID-19 patients and the other including only patients without COVID-19, to determine whether COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome is associated with higher 28-day mortality than non-COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome and to examine the differences in lung mechanics between these two types of acute respiratory distress syndrome.ResultsA total of 299 patients with COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and 1,010 patients with non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome were included in the main analysis. The results showed that non-COVID-19 patients used higher positive end-expiratory pressure (12.5cmH2O; SD 3.2 versus 11.7cmH2O SD 2.8; p < 0.001), were ventilated with lower tidal volumes (5.8mL/kg; SD 1.0 versus 6.5mL/kg; SD 1.2; p < 0.001) and had lower static respiratory compliance adjusted for ideal body weight (0.5mL/cmH2O/kg; SD 0.3 versus 0.6mL/cmH2O/kg; SD 0.3; p = 0.01). There was no difference between groups in 28-day mortality (52.3% versus 58.9%; p = 0.52) or mechanical ventilation duration in the first 28 days among survivors (13 [IQR 5 - 22] versus 12 [IQR 6 - 26], p = 0.46).ConclusionThis analysis showed that patients with non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome have different lung mechanics but similar outcomes to COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. After propensity score matching, there was no difference in lung mechanics or outcomes between groups.
| S-EPMC9749099 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7462395 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo determine the health status, exercise capacity, and health related quality of life (HRQoL) of COVID-19 associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) survivors, 8 months after diagnosis.MethodsAll eligible patients were interviewed and underwent a physical examination, chest X-ray, and 6 min walk test (6MWT). Scales to evaluate post-traumatic stress disorder, depression, anxiety, and HRQoL were applied.ResultsOf 1295 patients, 365 suffered ARDS and 166 survived to hospital discharge. Five died after discharge and 48 were lost to follow-up. Of the 113 remaining patients, 81% had persistent symptoms. More than 50% of patients completed less than 80% of the theoretical distance on the 6MWT, 50% had an abnormal X-ray and 93% of patients developed psychiatric disorders. Mean SF-36 scores were worse than in the general population. After multivariate regression analysis, female sex, non-Caucasian race, and Charlson index>2 were independent risk factors for a worse mental health component summary score on the SF-36, and age was associated with a better prognosis. Female sex and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease were independently associated with a worse physical component summary score.ConclusionCOVID-19 associated ARDS survivors have long-term consequences in health status, exercise capacity, and HRQoL. Strategies addressed to prevent these sequelae are needed.
| S-EPMC8363182 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7164771 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Use of prone positioning in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from COVID-19 may be greater than in patients treated for ARDS before the pandemic. However, the magnitude of this increase, sources of practice variation, and the extent to which use adheres to guidelines is unknown.ObjectivesTo compare prone positioning practices in patients with COVID-19 ARDS versus ARDS treated before the pandemic.Design setting and participantsWe conducted a multicenter retrospective cohort study of mechanically ventilated patients with early moderate-to-severe ARDS from COVID-19 (2020-2021) or ARDS from non-COVID-19 pneumonia (2018-2019) across 19 ICUs at five hospitals in Maryland.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was initiation of prolonged prone positioning (≥ 16 hr) within 48 hours of meeting oxygenation criteria. Comparisons were made between cohorts and within subgroups including academic versus community hospitals, and medical versus nonmedical ICUs. Other outcomes of interest included time to proning initiation, duration of prone sessions and temporal trends in proning frequency.ResultsProning was initiated within 48 hours in 227 of 389 patients (58.4%) with COVID-19 and 11 of 123 patients (8.9%) with historic ARDS (49.4% absolute increase [95% CI for % increase, 41.7-57.1%]). Comparing COVID-19 to historic ARDS, increases in proning were similar in academic and community settings but were larger in medical versus nonmedical ICUs. Proning was initiated earlier in COVID-19 versus historic ARDS (median hours (hr) from oxygenation criteria, 12.9 vs 30.6; p = 0.002) and proning sessions were longer (median hr, 43.0 vs 28.0; p = 0.01). Proning frequency increased rapidly at the beginning of the pandemic and was sustained.Conclusions and relevanceWe observed greater overall use of prone positioning, along with shorter time to initiation and longer proning sessions in ARDS from COVID-19 versus historic ARDS. This rapid practice change can serve as a model for implementing evidence-based practices in critical care.
| S-EPMC9243245 | biostudies-literature