Respiratory system compliance at the same PEEP level is similar in COVID and non-COVID ARDS.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
The comparison of respiratory system compliance (Crs) between COVID and non-COVID ARDS patients has been the object of debate, but few studies have evaluated it when considering applied positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP), which is one of the known determinants of Crs itself. The aim of this study was to compare Crs taking into account the applied PEEP.Methods
Two cohorts of patients were created: those with COVID-ARDS and those with non-COVID ARDS. In the whole sample the association between Crs and type of ARDS at different PEEP levels was adjusted for anthropometric and clinical variables. As secondary analyses, patients were matched for predicted functional residual capacity and the same association was assessed. Moreover, the association between Crs and type of ARDS was reassessed at predefined PEEP level of 0, 5, 10, and 15 cmH2O with a propensity score-weighted linear model.Results
367 patients were included in the study, 276 patients with COVID-ARDS and 91 with non-COVID ARDS. The association between Crs and type of ARDS was not significant in both the complete cohorts (p = 0.17) and in the matched cohorts (p = 0.92). This was true also for the propensity score weighted association at PEEP 5, 10 and 15 cmH2O, while it was statistically significant at PEEP 0 (with a median difference of 3 ml/cmH2O, which in our opinion is not clinically significant).Conclusions
The compliance of the respiratory system is similar between COVID ARDS and non-COVID ARDS when calculated at the same PEEP level and while taking into account patients' anthropometric characteristics.
SUBMITTER: Fusina F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8753591 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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.
| S-EPMC8593398 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8343350 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundControversies 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionIn 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.
| S-EPMC7868865 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn face of the Coronavirus Disease (COVID)-19 pandemic, best practice for mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) is intensely debated. Specifically, the rationale for high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and prone positioning in early COVID-19 ARDS has been questioned.MethodsThe first 23 consecutive patients with COVID-19 associated respiratory failure transferred to a single ICU were assessed. Eight were excluded: five were not invasively ventilated and three received veno-venous ECMO support. The remaining 15 were assessed over the first 15 days of mechanical ventilation. Best PEEP was defined by maximal oxygenation and was determined by structured decremental PEEP trials comprising the monitoring of oxygenation, airway pressures and trans-pulmonary pressures. In nine patients the impact of prone positioning on oxygenation was investigated. Additionally, the effects of high PEEP and prone positioning on pulmonary opacities in serial chest x-rays were determined by applying a semiquantitative scoring-system. This investigation is part of the prospective observational PA-COVID-19 study.FindingsPatients responded to initiation of invasive high PEEP ventilation with markedly improved oxygenation, which was accompanied by reduced pulmonary opacities within 6 h of mechanical ventilation. Decremental PEEP trials confirmed the need for high PEEP (17.9 (SD ± 3.9) mbar) for optimal oxygenation, while driving pressures remained low. Prone positioning substantially increased oxygenation (p<0.01).InterpretationIn early COVID-19 ARDS, substantial PEEP values were required for optimizing oxygenation. Pulmonary opacities resolved during mechanical ventilation with high PEEP suggesting recruitment of lung volume.FundingGerman Research Foundation, German Federal Ministry of Education and Research.
| S-EPMC7547915 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposePatients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and hypercapnia present a formidable treatment challenge. We examined the use of esophageal balloon for assessment of transpulmonary pressures to guide mechanical ventilation for successful management of severe hypercapnia.Materials and methodsPatients with severe ARDS and hypercapnia were studied. Esophageal balloon was inserted and mechanical ventilation was guided by assessment of transpulmonary pressures. Positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) and inspiratory driving pressures were adjusted with the aim of achieving tidal volume of 6 to 8 mL/kg based on ideal body weight (IBW), while not exceeding end inspiratory transpulmonary (EITP) pressure of 25 cm H2O.ResultsSix patients with severe ARDS and hypercapnia were studied. Mean PaCO2 on enrollment was 108.33 ± 25.65 mmHg. One hour after adjustment of PEEP and inspiratory driving pressure guided by transpulmonary pressure, PaCO2 decreased to 64.5 ± 16.89 mmHg (P < 0.01). Tidal volume was 3.96 ± 0.92 mL/kg IBW before and increased to 7.07 ± 1.21 mL/kg IBW after intervention (P < 0.01). EITP pressure before intervention was low with a mean of 13.68 ± 8.69 cm H2O and remained low at 16.76 ± 4.76 cm H2O (P = 0.18) after intervention. Adjustment of PEEP and inspiratory driving pressures did not worsen oxygenation and did not affect cardiac output significantly.ConclusionThe use of esophageal balloon as a guide to mechanical ventilation was able to treat severe hypercapnia in ARDS patients.
| S-EPMC4324110 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Purpose: The main characteristics of mechanically ventilated ARDS patients affected with COVID-19, and the adherence to lung-protective ventilation strategies are not well known. We describe characteristics and outcomes of confirmed ARDS in COVID-19 patients managed with invasive mechanical ventilation (MV).Methods: This is a multicenter, prospective, observational study in consecutive, mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS (as defined by the Berlin criteria) affected with with COVID-19 (confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in nasal or pharyngeal swab specimens), admitted to a network of 36 Spanish and Andorran intensive care units (ICUs) between March 12 and June 1, 2020. We examined the clinical features, ventilatory management, and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 ARDS patients, and compared some results with other relevant studies in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients.Results: A total of 742 patients were analysed with complete 28-day outcome data: 128 (17.1%) with mild, 331 (44.6%) with moderate, and 283 (38.1%) with severe ARDS. At baseline, defined as the first day on invasive MV, median (IQR) values were: tidal volume 6.9 (6.3-7.8) ml/kg predicted body weight, positive end-expiratory pressure 12 (11-14) cmH2O. Values of respiratory system compliance 35 (27-45) ml/cmH2O, plateau pressure 25 (22-29) cmH2O, and driving pressure 12 (10-16) cmH2O were similar to values from non-COVID-19 ARDS patients observed in other studies. Recruitment maneuvers, prone position and neuromuscular blocking agents were used in 79%, 76% and 72% of patients, respectively. The risk of 28-day mortality was lower in mild ARDS [hazard ratio (RR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.33-0.93), p?=?0.026] and moderate ARDS [hazard ratio (RR) 0.69 (95% CI 0.47-0.97), p?=?0.035] when compared to severe ARDS. The 28-day mortality was similar to other observational studies in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients.Conclusions: In this large series, COVID-19 ARDS patients have features similar to other causes of ARDS, compliance with lung-protective ventilation was high, and the risk of 28-day mortality increased with the degree of ARDS severity.
| S-EPMC7387884 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC8317138 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) remains high. These patients require mechanical ventilation strategies that include high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). It remains controversial whether high PEEP can improve outcomes for ARDS patients, especially patients who show improvement in oxygenation in response to PEEP. In this meta-analysis, we aimed to evaluate the effects of high PEEP on ARDS patients.MethodsWe electronically searched randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, EMBASE, CINAHL and Web of Science databases from January 1990 to December 2017. Meta-analyses of the effects of PEEP on survival in adults with ARDS were conducted using the methods recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration.ResultsA total of 3612 patients from nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. There were 1794 and 1818 patients in the high and low PEEP groups, respectively. Hospital mortality showed no significant difference between the high and low PEEP groups (RR?=?0.92; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.07; P?=?0.26). Similar results were found for 28-d mortality (RR?=?0.88; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.07; P?=?0.19) and ICU mortality (RR?=?0.83; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.07; P?=?0.15). The risk of clinically objectified barotrauma was not significantly different between the high and low PEEP groups (RR?=?1.24; 95% CI, 0.74 to 2.09, P?=?0.41). In the subgroup of ARDS patients who responded to increased PEEP by improved oxygenation (from 6 RCTs), high PEEP significantly reduced hospital mortality (RR?=?0.83; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.98; P?=?0.03), ICU mortality (RR?=?0.74; 95% CI, 0.56 to 0.98; P?=?0.04),but the 28-d mortality was not decreased(RR?=?0.83; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.01; P?=?0.07). For ARDS patients in the low PEEP group who received a PEEP level lower than 10 cmH2O (from 6 RCTs), ICU mortality was lower in the high PEEP group than the low PEEP group (RR?=?0.65; 95% CI, 0.45 to 0.94; P?=?0.02).ConclusionsFor ARDS patients who responded to increased PEEP by improved oxygenation, high PEEP could reduce hospital mortality, ICU mortality and 28-d mortality. High PEEP does not increase the risk of clinically objectified barotrauma.
| S-EPMC6240288 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC7453378 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), extravascular lung water index (EVLWi) and pulmonary vascular permeability index (PVPI) measured by transpulmonary thermodilution reflect the degree of lung injury. Whether EVLWi and PVPI are different between non-COVID-19 ARDS and the ARDS due to COVID-19 has never been reported. We aimed at comparing EVLWi, PVPI, respiratory mechanics and hemodynamics in patients with COVID-19 ARDS vs. ARDS of other origin.MethodsBetween March and October 2020, in an observational study conducted in intensive care units from three university hospitals, 60 patients with COVID-19-related ARDS monitored by transpulmonary thermodilution were compared to the 60 consecutive non-COVID-19 ARDS admitted immediately before the COVID-19 outbreak between December 2018 and February 2020.ResultsDriving pressure was similar between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS, at baseline as well as during the study period. Compared to patients without COVID-19, those with COVID-19 exhibited higher EVLWi, both at the baseline (17 (14-21) vs. 15 (11-19) mL/kg, respectively, p = 0.03) and at the time of its maximal value (24 (18-27) vs. 21 (15-24) mL/kg, respectively, p = 0.01). Similar results were observed for PVPI. In COVID-19 patients, the worst ratio between arterial oxygen partial pressure over oxygen inspired fraction was lower (81 (70-109) vs. 100 (80-124) mmHg, respectively, p = 0.02) and prone positioning and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) were more frequently used than in patients without COVID-19. COVID-19 patients had lower maximal lactate level and maximal norepinephrine dose than patients without COVID-19. Day-60 mortality was similar between groups (57% vs. 65%, respectively, p = 0.45). The maximal value of EVLWi and PVPI remained independently associated with outcome in the whole cohort.ConclusionCompared to ARDS patients without COVID-19, patients with COVID-19 had similar lung mechanics, but higher EVLWi and PVPI values from the beginning of the disease. This was associated with worse oxygenation and with more requirement of prone positioning and ECMO. This is compatible with the specific lung inflammation and severe diffuse alveolar damage related to COVID-19. By contrast, patients with COVID-19 had fewer hemodynamic derangement. Eventually, mortality was similar between groups.Trial registration number and date of registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04337983). Registered 30 March 2020-Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04337983 .
| S-EPMC8169440 | biostudies-literature