Dataset Information

Prevalence of phenotypes of acute respiratory distress syndrome in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a prospective observational study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

In acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) unrelated to COVID-19, two phenotypes, based on the severity of systemic inflammation (hyperinflammatory and hypoinflammatory), have been described. The hyperinflammatory phenotype is known to be associated with increased multiorgan failure and mortality. In this study, we aimed to identify these phenotypes in COVID-19-related ARDS.

Methods

In this prospective observational study done at two UK intensive care units, we recruited patients with ARDS due to COVID-19. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory data were collected at baseline. Plasma samples were analysed for interleukin-6 (IL-6) and soluble tumour necrosis factor receptor superfamily member 1A (TNFR1) using a novel point-of-care assay. A parsimonious regression classifier model was used to calculate the probability for the hyperinflammatory phenotype in COVID-19 using IL-6, soluble TNFR1, and bicarbonate levels. Data from this cohort was compared with patients with ARDS due to causes other than COVID-19 recruited to a previous UK multicentre, randomised controlled trial of simvastatin (HARP-2).

Findings

Between March 17 and April 25, 2020, 39 patients were recruited to the study. Median ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fractional concentration of oxygen in inspired air (PaO₂/FiO₂) was 18 kpa (IQR 15-21) and acute physiology and chronic health evaluation II score was 12 (10-16). 17 (44%) of 39 patients had died by day 28 of the study. Compared with survivors, patients who died were older and had lower PaO₂/FiO₂. The median probability for the hyperinflammatory phenotype was 0·03 (IQR 0·01-0·2). Depending on the probability cutoff used to assign class, the prevalence of the hyperinflammatory phenotype was between four (10%) and eight (21%) of 39, which is lower than the proportion of patients with the hyperinflammatory phenotype in HARP-2 (186 [35%] of 539). Using the Youden index cutoff (0·274) to classify phenotype, five (63%) of eight patients with the hyperinflammatory phenotype and 12 (39%) of 31 with the hypoinflammatory phenotype died. Compared with matched patients recruited to HARP-2, levels of IL-6 were similar in our cohort, whereas soluble TNFR1 was significantly lower in patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS.

Interpretation

In this exploratory analysis of 39 patients, ARDS due to COVID-19 was not associated with higher systemic inflammation and was associated with a lower prevalence of the hyperinflammatory phenotype than that observed in historical ARDS data. This finding suggests that the excess mortality observed in COVID-19-related ARDS is unlikely to be due to the upregulation of inflammatory pathways described by the parsimonious model.

Funding

US National Institutes of Health, Innovate UK, and Randox.

SUBMITTER: Sinha P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7718296 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Rationale: Reverse triggering is an underexplored form of dyssynchrony with important clinical implications in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome.Objectives: This retrospective study identified reverse trigger phenotypes and characterized their impacts on Vt and transpulmonary pressure.Methods: Fifty-five patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome on pressure-regulated ventilator modes were included. Four phenotypes of reverse triggering with and without breath stacking and their impact on lung inflation and deflation were investigated.Measurements and Main Results: Inflation volumes, respiratory muscle pressure generation, and transpulmonary pressures were determined and phenotypes differentiated using Campbell diagrams of respiratory activity. Reverse triggering was detected in 25 patients, 15 with associated breath stacking, and 13 with stable reverse triggering consistent with respiratory entrainment. Phenotypes were associated with variable levels of inspiratory effort (mean 4-10 cm H2O per phenotype). Early reverse triggering with early expiratory relaxation increased Vts (88 [64-113] ml) and inspiratory transpulmonary pressures (3 [2-3] cm H2O) compared with passive breaths. Early reverse triggering with delayed expiratory relaxation increased Vts (128 [86-170] ml) and increased inspiratory and mean-expiratory transpulmonary pressure (7 [5-9] cm H2O and 5 [4-6] cm H2O). Mid-cycle reverse triggering (initiation during inflation and maximal effort during deflation) increased Vt (51 [38-64] ml), increased inspiratory and mean-expiratory transpulmonary pressure (3 [2-4] cm H2O and 3 [2-3] cm H2O), and caused incomplete exhalation. Late reverse triggering (occurring exclusively during exhalation) increased mean expiratory transpulmonary pressure (2 [1-2] cm H2O) and caused incomplete exhalation. Breath stacking resulted in large delivered volumes (176 [155-197] ml).Conclusions: Reverse triggering causes variable physiological effects, depending on the phenotype. Differentiation of phenotype effects may be important to understand the clinical impacts of these events.