Dataset Information

Propofol-Associated Hypertriglyceridemia in Coronavirus Disease 2019 Versus Noncoronavirus Disease 2019 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

ABSTRACT: Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Objectives:

To characterize the incidence and characteristics of propofol-associated hypertriglyceridemia in coronavirus disease 2019 versus noncoronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Design:

Single-center prospective, observational cohort study.

Setting:

Medical ICU and regional infectious containment unit.

Patients:

Patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome admitted from April 7, 2020, to May 15, 2020, requiring continuous propofol administration.

Interventions:

None.

Measurements and Main Results:

Of 50 patients enrolled, 54% had coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome. Median Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were 35.5 (interquartile range, 30.2–41) and 8 (interquartile range, 6–9). Pao2/Fio2 ratio was 130.5 (interquartile range, 94.5–193.8). Patients with coronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome experienced a higher rate of hypertriglyceridemia (triglyceride ? 500?mg/dL) than noncoronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (9 [33.3%] vs 1 [4.3%]; p = 0.014). Those with coronavirus disease 2019, compared with those without, received more propofol prior to becoming hypertriglyceridemic (median, 5,436.0?mg [interquartile range, 3,405.5–6,845.5 mg] vs 4,229.0?mg [interquartile range, 2,083.4–4,972.1 mg]; p = 0.027). After adjustment for propofol dose with logistic regression (odds ratio, 5.97; 95% CI, 1.16–59.57; p = 0.031) and propensity score matching (odds ratio, 8.64; 95% CI, 1.27–149.12; p = 0.025), there remained a significant difference in the development of hypertriglyceridemia between coronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome and noncoronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome. There was no difference between groups in time to hypertriglyceridemia (p = 0.063). Serum lipase was not different between those who did or did not develop hypertriglyceridemia (p = 0.545). No patients experienced signs or symptoms of pancreatitis.

Conclusions:

Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome experienced a higher rate of propofol-associated hypertriglyceridemia than noncoronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients, even after accounting for differences in propofol administration.

SUBMITTER: Kenes M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7746206 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesMicrovascular thrombosis contributes to acute respiratory distress syndrome pathophysiology and has been demonstrated in coronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome. Clinical laboratory measurements of coagulation and disseminated intravascular coagulation, such as coagulation factor function, platelet count, and fibrinogen, may not fully reflect the extent of microvascular thrombosis present in these patients. We investigated thromboelastography in patients with coronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome with the objective of characterizing suspected coagulopathy and impaired fibrinolysis.DesignRetrospective observational cohort study.SettingSingle-center academic medical center.PatientsTen patients with polymerase chain reaction-confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 disease complicated by acute respiratory distress syndrome.InterventionsMeasurement of thromboelastography (n = 10) and thrombolysis with alteplase (n = 4).Measurements and main resultsHypercoagulability and decreased or absent fibrinolysis were demonstrated by thromboelastography. Thrombocytopenia and hypofibrinogenemia were not observed, while seven of 10 patients had elevated d-dimer values. For patients who received thrombolytic therapy, repeat thromboelastography demonstrated improvements in coagulation index and lysis at 30 minutes reflecting reduced hypercoagulability and increased fibrinolysis. One major bleeding complication was detected following thrombolysis. Eight of 10 patients survived and were successfully extubated, and six of 10 have since been discharged.ConclusionsIn coronavirus disease 2019 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in whom thromboelastography was performed, hypercoagulability and impaired fibrinolysis were observed. In the context of autopsy studies demonstrating pulmonary microvascular thromboses in coronavirus disease 2019 patients, noninvasive detection of hypercoagulability and deficient fibrinolysis in coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome using thromboelastography could improve understanding and management of coronavirus disease 2019.

Project description:ObjectivesPatients with coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome appear to present with at least two distinct phenotypes: severe hypoxemia with relatively well-preserved lung compliance and lung gas volumes (type 1) and a more conventional acute respiratory distress syndrome phenotype, displaying the typical characteristics of the "baby lung" (type 2). We aimed to test plausible hypotheses regarding the pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome and to evaluate the resulting implications for ventilatory management.DesignWe adapted a high-fidelity computational simulator, previously validated in several studies of acute respiratory distress syndrome, to: 1) develop quantitative insights into the key pathophysiologic differences between the coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome and the conventional acute respiratory distress syndrome and 2) assess the impact of different positive end-expiratory pressure, Fio2, and tidal volume settings.SettingInterdisciplinary Collaboration in Systems Medicine Research Network.SubjectsThe simulator was calibrated to represent coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients with both normal and elevated body mass indices undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation.InterventionsNone.Measurements and main resultsAn acute respiratory distress syndrome model implementing disruption of hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction and vasodilation leading to hyperperfusion of collapsed lung regions failed to replicate clinical data on type 1 coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. Adding mechanisms to reflect disruption of alveolar gas-exchange due to the effects of pneumonitis and heightened vascular resistance due to the emergence of microthrombi produced levels of ventilation perfusion mismatch and hypoxemia consistent with data from type 1 coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients, while preserving close-to-normal lung compliance and gas volumes. Atypical responses to positive end-expiratory pressure increments between 5 and 15 cm H2O were observed for this type 1 coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome model across a range of measures: increasing positive end-expiratory pressure resulted in reduced lung compliance and no improvement in oxygenation, whereas mechanical power, driving pressure, and plateau pressure all increased. Fio2 settings based on acute respiratory distress syndrome network protocols at different positive end-expiratory pressure levels were insufficient to achieve adequate oxygenation. Incrementing tidal volumes from 5 to 10 mL/kg produced similar increases in multiple indicators of ventilator-induced lung injury in the type 1 coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome model to those seen in a conventional acute respiratory distress syndrome model.ConclusionsOur model suggests that use of standard positive end-expiratory pressure/Fio2 tables, higher positive end-expiratory pressure strategies, and higher tidal volumes may all be potentially deleterious in type 1 coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients, and that a highly personalized approach to treatment is advisable.

Project description: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.