Dataset Information

Static compliance of the respiratory system in COVID-19 related ARDS: an international multicenter study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Controversies exist on the nature of COVID-19 related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in particular on the static compliance of the respiratory system (Crs). We aimed to analyze the association of Crs with outcome in COVID-19-associated ARDS, to ascertain its determinants and to describe its evolution at day-14.

Methods

In this observational multicenter cohort of patients with moderate to severe Covid-19 ARDS, Crs was measured at day-1 and day-14. Association between Crs or Crs/ideal body weight (IBW) and breathing without assistance at day-28 was analyzed with multivariable logistic regression. Determinants were ascertained by multivariable linear regression. Day-14 Crs was compared to day-1 Crs with paired t-test in patients still under controlled mechanical ventilation.

Results

The mean Crs in 372 patients was 37.6 ± 13 mL/cmH₂O, similar to as in ARDS of other causes. Multivariate linear regression identified chronic hypertension, low PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio, low PEEP, and low tidal volume as associated with lower Crs/IBW. After adjustment on confounders, nor Crs [OR 1.0 (CI 95% 0.98-1.02)] neither Crs/IBW [OR 0.63 (CI 95% 0.13-3.1)] were associated with the chance of breathing without assistance at day-28 whereas plateau pressure was [OR 0.93 (CI 95% 0.88-0.99)]. In a subset of 108 patients, day-14 Crs decreased compared to day-1 Crs (31.2 ± 14.4 mL/cmH₂O vs 37.8 ± 11.4 mL/cmH₂O, p < 0.001). The decrease in Crs was not associated with day-28 outcome.

Conclusion

In a large multicenter cohort of moderate to severe COVID-19 ARDS, mean Crs was decreased below 40 mL/cmH₂O and was not associated with day-28 outcome. Crs decreased between day-1 and day-14 but the decrease was not associated with day-28 outcome.

SUBMITTER: Vandenbunder B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7868865 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundProne positioning is recommended for patients with moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) receiving mechanical ventilation. While the debate continues as to whether COVID-19 ARDS is clinically different from non-COVID ARDS, there is little data on whether the physiological effects of prone positioning differ between the two conditions. We aimed to compare the physiological effect of prone positioning between patients with COVID-19 ARDS and those with non-COVID ARDS.MethodsWe retrospectively compared 23 patients with COVID-19 ARDS and 145 patients with non-COVID ARDS treated using prone positioning while on mechanical ventilation. Changes in PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static respiratory system compliance (Crs) after the first session of prone positioning were compared between the two groups: first, using all patients with non-COVID ARDS, and second, using subgroups of patients with non-COVID ARDS matched 1:1 with patients with COVID-19 ARDS for baseline PaO2/FiO2 ratio and static Crs. We also evaluated whether the response to the first prone positioning session was associated with the clinical outcome.ResultsWhen compared with the entire group of patients with non-COVID ARDS, patients with COVID-19 ARDS showed more pronounced improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio [adjusted difference 39.3 (95% CI 5.2-73.5) mmHg] and static Crs [adjusted difference 3.4 (95% CI 1.1-5.6) mL/cmH2O]. However, these between-group differences were not significant when the matched samples (either PaO2/FiO2-matched or compliance-matched) were analyzed. Patients who successfully discontinued mechanical ventilation showed more remarkable improvement in PaO2/FiO2 ratio [median 112 (IQR 85-144) vs. 35 (IQR 6-52) mmHg, P = 0.003] and static compliance [median 5.7 (IQR 3.3-7.7) vs. - 1.0 (IQR - 3.7-3.0) mL/cmH2O, P = 0.006] after prone positioning compared with patients who did not. The association between oxygenation and Crs responses to prone positioning and clinical outcome was also evident in the adjusted competing risk regression.ConclusionsIn patients with COVID-19 ARDS, prone positioning was as effective in improving respiratory physiology as in patients with non-COVID ARDS. Thus, it should be actively considered as a therapeutic option. The physiological response to the first session of prone positioning was predictive of the clinical outcome of patients with COVID-19 ARDS.

Project description:BackgroundPathophysiological features of coronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (COVID-19 ARDS) were indicated to be somewhat different from those described in nonCOVID-19 ARDS, because of relatively preserved compliance of the respiratory system despite marked hypoxemia. We aim ascertaining whether respiratory system static compliance (Crs), driving pressure (DP), and tidal volume normalized for ideal body weight (VT/kg IBW) at the 1st day of controlled mechanical ventilation are associated with intensive care unit (ICU) mortality in COVID-19 ARDS.MethodsObservational multicenter cohort study. All consecutive COVID-19 adult patients admitted to 25 ICUs belonging to the COVID-19 VENETO ICU network (February 28th-April 28th, 2020), who received controlled mechanical ventilation, were screened. Only patients fulfilling ARDS criteria and with complete records of Crs, DP and VT/kg IBW within the 1st day of controlled mechanical ventilation were included. Crs, DP and VT/kg IBW were collected in sedated, paralyzed and supine patients.ResultsA total of 704 COVID-19 patients were screened and 241 enrolled. Seventy-one patients (29%) died in ICU. The logistic regression analysis showed that: (1) Crs was not linearly associated with ICU mortality (p value for nonlinearity = 0.01), with a greater risk of death for values < 48 ml/cmH2O; (2) the association between DP and ICU mortality was linear (p value for nonlinearity = 0.68), and increasing DP from 10 to 14 cmH2O caused significant higher odds of in-ICU death (OR 1.45, 95% CI 1.06-1.99); (3) VT/kg IBW was not associated with a significant increase of the risk of death (OR 0.92, 95% CI 0.55-1.52). Multivariable analysis confirmed these findings.ConclusionsCrs < 48 ml/cmH2O was associated with ICU mortality, while DP was linearly associated with mortality. DP should be kept as low as possible, even in the case of relatively preserved Crs, irrespective of VT/kg IBW, to reduce the risk of death.

Project description:PurposeThe positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) level with best respiratory system compliance (Crs) is frequently used for PEEP selection in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients. On occasion, two similar best Crs (where the difference between the Crs of two PEEP levels is < 1 ml/cm H2O) may be identified during decremental PEEP titration. Selecting PEEP under such conditions is challenging. The aim of this study was to provide supplementary rationale for PEEP selection by assessing the global and regional ventilation distributions between two PEEP levels in this situation.MethodsEight ARDS cases with similar best Crs at two different PEEP levels were analyzed using examination-specific electrical impedance tomography (EIT) measures and airway stress index (SIaw). Five Crs were measured at PEEP values of 25 cm H2O (PEEP25), 20 cm H2O (PEEP20), 15 cm H2O (PEEPH), 11 cm H2O (PEEPI), and 7 cm H2O (PEEPL). The higher PEEP value of the two PEEPs with similar best Crs was designated as PEEPupper, while the lower designated as PEEPlower.ResultsPEEPH and PEEPI shared the best Crs in two cases, while similar Crs was found at PEEPI and PEEPL in the remaining six cases. SIaw was higher with PEEPupper as compared to PEEPlower (1.06 ± 0.10 versus 0.99 ± 0.09, p = 0.05). Proportion of lung hyperdistension was significantly higher with PEEPupper than PEEPlower (7.0 ± 5.1% versus 0.3 ± 0.5%, p = 0.0002). In contrast, proportion of recruitable lung collapse was higher with PEEPlower than PEEPupper (18.6 ± 4.4% versus 5.9 ± 3.7%, p < 0.0001). Cyclic alveolar collapse and reopening during tidal breathing was higher at PEEPlower than PEEPupper (34.4 ± 19.3% versus 16.0 ± 9.1%, p = 0.046). The intratidal gas distribution (ITV) index was also significantly higher at PEEPlower than PEEPupper (2.6 ± 1.3 versus 1.8 ± 0.7, p = 0.042).ConclusionsPEEPupper is a rational selection in ARDS cases with two similar best Crs. EIT provides additional information for the selection of PEEP in such circumstances.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40846-021-00668-2.

Project description:BackgroundWhether respiratory physiology of COVID-19-induced respiratory failure is different from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) of other etiologies is unclear. We conducted a single-center study to describe respiratory mechanics and response to positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in COVID-19 ARDS and to compare COVID-19 patients to matched-control subjects with ARDS from other causes.MethodsThirty consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to an intensive care unit in Rome, Italy, and fulfilling moderate-to-severe ARDS criteria were enrolled within 24 h from endotracheal intubation. Gas exchange, respiratory mechanics, and ventilatory ratio were measured at PEEP of 15 and 5 cmH2O. A single-breath derecruitment maneuver was performed to assess recruitability. After 1:1 matching based on PaO2/FiO2, FiO2, PEEP, and tidal volume, COVID-19 patients were compared to subjects affected by ARDS of other etiologies who underwent the same procedures in a previous study.ResultsThirty COVID-19 patients were successfully matched with 30 ARDS from other etiologies. At low PEEP, median [25th-75th percentiles] PaO2/FiO2 in the two groups was 119 mmHg [101-142] and 116 mmHg [87-154]. Average compliance (41 ml/cmH2O [32-52] vs. 36 ml/cmH2O [27-42], p = 0.045) and ventilatory ratio (2.1 [1.7-2.3] vs. 1.6 [1.4-2.1], p = 0.032) were slightly higher in COVID-19 patients. Inter-individual variability (ratio of standard deviation to mean) of compliance was 36% in COVID-19 patients and 31% in other ARDS. In COVID-19 patients, PaO2/FiO2 was linearly correlated with respiratory system compliance (r = 0.52 p = 0.003). High PEEP improved PaO2/FiO2 in both cohorts, but more remarkably in COVID-19 patients (p = 0.005). Recruitability was not different between cohorts (p = 0.39) and was highly inter-individually variable (72% in COVID-19 patients and 64% in ARDS from other causes). In COVID-19 patients, recruitability was independent from oxygenation and respiratory mechanics changes due to PEEP.ConclusionsEarly after establishment of mechanical ventilation, COVID-19 patients follow ARDS physiology, with compliance reduction related to the degree of hypoxemia, and inter-individually variable respiratory mechanics and recruitability. Physiological differences between ARDS from COVID-19 and other causes appear small.

Project description:Extracorporeal life support (ECLS) is a means to support patients with acute respiratory failure. Initially, recommendations to treat severe cases of pandemic coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with ECLS have been restrained. In the meantime, ECLS has been shown to produce similar outcomes in patients with severe COVID-19 compared to existing data on ARDS mortality. We performed an international email survey to assess how ECLS providers worldwide have previously used ECLS during the treatment of critically ill patients with COVID-19. A questionnaire with 45 questions (covering, e.g., indication, technical aspects, benefit, and reasons for treatment discontinuation), mostly multiple choice, was distributed by email to ECLS centers. The survey was approved by the European branch of the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO); 276 ECMO professionals from 98 centers in 30 different countries on four continents reported that they employed ECMO for very severe COVID-19 cases, mostly in veno-venous configuration (87%). The most common reason to establish ECLS was isolated hypoxemic respiratory failure (50%), followed by a combination of hypoxemia and hypercapnia (39%). Only a small fraction of patients required veno-arterial cannulation due to heart failure (3%). Time on ECLS varied between less than 2 and more than 4 weeks. The main reason to discontinue ECLS treatment prior to patient's recovery was lack of clinical improvement (53%), followed by major bleeding, mostly intracranially (13%). Only 4% of respondents reported that triage situations, lack of staff or lack of oxygenators, were responsible for discontinuation of ECLS support. Most ECLS physicians (51%, IQR 30%) agreed that patients with COVID-19-induced ARDS (CARDS) benefitted from ECLS. Overall mortality of COVID-19 patients on ECLS was estimated to be about 55%. ECLS has been utilized successfully during the COVID-19 pandemic to stabilize CARDS patients in hypoxemic or hypercapnic lung failure. Age and multimorbidity limited the use of ECLS. Triage situations were rarely a concern. ECLS providers stated that patients with severe COVID-19 benefitted from ECLS.

Project description:SARS-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus that causes acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), death and long-term sequelae. Innate immune cells are critical for host defense but are also the primary drivers of ARDS. The relationships between innate cellular responses in ARDS resulting from COVID-19 compared to other causes of ARDS, such as bacterial sepsis is unclear. Moreover, the beneficial effects of dexamethasone therapy during severe COVID-19 remain speculative, but understanding the mechanistic effects could improve evidence-based therapeutic interventions. To interrogate these relationships, we developed an scRNAseq atlas that is freely accessible (biernaskielab.ca/COVID_neutrophil). We discovered that compared to bacterial ARDS, COVID-19 was associated with distinct neutrophil polarization characterized by either interferon (IFN) or prostaglandin (PG) active states. Neutrophils from bacterial ARDS had higher expression of antibacterial molecules such as PLAC8 and CD83. Dexamethasone therapy in COVID patients rapidly altered the IFNactive state, downregulated interferon responsive genes, and activated IL1R2+ve neutrophils. Dexamethasone also induced the emergence of immature neutrophils expressing immunosuppressive molecules ARG1 and ANXA1, which were not present in healthy controls. Moreover, dexamethasone remodeled global cellular interactions by changing neutrophils from information receivers into information providers. Importantly, male patients had higher proportions of IFNactive neutrophils and a greater degree of steroid-induced immature neutrophil expansion. Indeed, the highest proportion of IFNactive neutrophils was associated with mortality. These results define neutrophil states unique to COVID-19 when contextualized to other life-threatening infections, thereby enhancing the relevance of our findings at the bedside. Furthermore, the molecular benefits of dexamethasone therapy are also defined. The identified molecular pathways can now be targeted to develop improved therapeutics.