Dataset Information

Longitudinal changes in compliance, oxygenation and ventilatory ratio in COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 pulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Differences 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 (C_RS), oxygenation parameters and ventilatory ratio (VR) in patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 pulmonary ARDS matched on oxygenation.

Methods

135 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.

Results

The two groups were similar on initial oxygenation. COVID-19 patients had a higher body mass index, higher C_RS at day 1 (median [IQR], 35 [28-44] vs 32 [26-38] ml cmH₂O^-1, p = 0.037). At day 1, C_RS 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 C_RS 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, C_RS 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).

Conclusions

For a similar initial oxygenation, COVID-19 ARDS initially differs from classical ARDS by a higher C_RS, dissociated from oxygenation. C_RS become similar for patients remaining on mechanical ventilation during the first week of evolution, but oxygenation becomes lower in COVID-19 patients.

Trial registration

clinicaltrials.gov NCT04385004.

SUBMITTER: Beloncle F

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8280689 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (COVID-19 ARDS) seems to differ from the "classic ARDS", showing initial significant hypoxemia in the face of relatively preserved compliance and evolving later in a scenario of poorly compliant lungs. We tested the hypothesis that in patients with COVID-19 ARDS, the initial value of static compliance of respiratory system (Crs) (1) depends on the previous duration of the disease (i.e., the fewer days of illness, the higher the Crs and vice versa) and (2) identifies different lung patterns of time evolution and response to prone positioning.MethodsThis was a single-center prospective observational study. We enrolled consecutive mechanically ventilated patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 who met ARDS criteria, admitted to intensive care unit (ICU). Patients were divided in four groups based on quartiles of initial Crs. Relationship between Crs and the previous duration of the disease was evaluated. Respiratory parameters collected once a day and during prone positioning were compared between groups.ResultsWe evaluated 110 mechanically ventilated patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 who met ARDS criteria admitted to our ICUs. Patients were divided in groups based on quartiles of initial Crs. The median initial Crs was 41 (32-47) ml/cmH2O. No association was found between the previous duration of the disease and the initial Crs. The Crs did not change significantly over time within each quartile. Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and driving pressure were respectively lower and greater in patients with lower Crs. Prone positioning significantly improved PaO2/FiO2 in the 4 groups, however it increased the Crs significantly only in patients in lower quartile of Crs.ConclusionsIn our cohort, the initial Crs is not dependent on the previous duration of COVID-19 disease. Prone positioning improves oxygenation irrespective to initial Crs, but it ameliorates respiratory mechanics only in patients with lower Crs.

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.