Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 208(1): 25-38, 2023 Jul 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-2297287

ABSTRACT

Rationale: Defining lung recruitability is needed for safe positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) selection in mechanically ventilated patients. However, there is no simple bedside method including both assessment of recruitability and risks of overdistension as well as personalized PEEP titration. Objectives: To describe the range of recruitability using electrical impedance tomography (EIT), effects of PEEP on recruitability, respiratory mechanics and gas exchange, and a method to select optimal EIT-based PEEP. Methods: This is the analysis of patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) from an ongoing multicenter prospective physiological study including patients with moderate-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome of different causes. EIT, ventilator data, hemodynamics, and arterial blood gases were obtained during PEEP titration maneuvers. EIT-based optimal PEEP was defined as the crossing point of the overdistension and collapse curves during a decremental PEEP trial. Recruitability was defined as the amount of modifiable collapse when increasing PEEP from 6 to 24 cm H2O (ΔCollapse24-6). Patients were classified as low, medium, or high recruiters on the basis of tertiles of ΔCollapse24-6. Measurements and Main Results: In 108 patients with COVID-19, recruitability varied from 0.3% to 66.9% and was unrelated to acute respiratory distress syndrome severity. Median EIT-based PEEP differed between groups: 10 versus 13.5 versus 15.5 cm H2O for low versus medium versus high recruitability (P < 0.05). This approach assigned a different PEEP level from the highest compliance approach in 81% of patients. The protocol was well tolerated; in four patients, the PEEP level did not reach 24 cm H2O because of hemodynamic instability. Conclusions: Recruitability varies widely among patients with COVID-19. EIT allows personalizing PEEP setting as a compromise between recruitability and overdistension. Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04460859).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , Electric Impedance , Prospective Studies , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnostic imaging , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Tomography, X-Ray Computed/methods , Tomography/methods
2.
Crit Care Med ; 50(5): 750-759, 2022 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1440663

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of extended lung ultrasonographic assessment, including evaluation of dynamic air bronchograms and color Doppler imaging to differentiate pneumonia and atelectasis in patients with consolidation on chest radiograph. Compare this approach to the Simplified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score, Lung Ultrasound Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score, and the Bedside Lung Ultrasound in Emergency protocol. DESIGN: Prospective diagnostic accuracy study. SETTING: Adult ICU applying selective digestive decontamination. PATIENTS: Adult patients that underwent a chest radiograph for any indication at any time during admission. Patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome, coronavirus disease 2019, severe thoracic trauma, and infectious isolation measures were excluded. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Lung ultrasound was performed within 24 hours of chest radiograph. Consolidated tissue was assessed for presence of dynamic air bronchograms and with color Doppler imaging for presence of flow. Clinical data were recorded after ultrasonographic assessment. The primary outcome was diagnostic accuracy of dynamic air bronchogram and color Doppler imaging alone and within a decision tree to differentiate pneumonia from atelectasis. Of 120 patients included, 51 (42.5%) were diagnosed with pneumonia. The dynamic air bronchogram had a 45% (95% CI, 31-60%) sensitivity and 99% (95% CI, 92-100%) specificity. Color Doppler imaging had a 90% (95% CI, 79-97%) sensitivity and 68% (95% CI, 56-79%) specificity. The combined decision tree had an 86% (95% CI, 74-94%) sensitivity and an 86% (95% CI, 75-93%) specificity. The Bedside Lung Ultrasound in Emergency protocol had a 100% (95% CI, 93-100%) sensitivity and 0% (95% CI, 0-5%) specificity, while the Simplified Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score and Lung Ultrasound Clinical Pulmonary Infection Score had a 41% (95% CI, 28-56%) sensitivity, 84% (95% CI, 73-92%) specificity and 68% (95% CI, 54-81%) sensitivity, 81% (95% CI, 70-90%) specificity, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with pulmonary consolidation on chest radiograph, an extended lung ultrasound protocol is an accurate and directly bedside available tool to differentiate pneumonia from atelectasis. It outperforms standard lung ultrasound and clinical scores.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pneumonia , Pulmonary Atelectasis , Adult , Critical Illness , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Pneumonia/diagnostic imaging , Prospective Studies , Pulmonary Atelectasis/diagnostic imaging , Sensitivity and Specificity , Ultrasonography/methods
3.
Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol ; 40(11): 2586-2597, 2020 11.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1015731

ABSTRACT

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 emerged as a serious human pathogen in late 2019, causing the disease coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The most common clinical presentation of severe COVID-19 is acute respiratory failure consistent with the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Airway, lung parenchymal, pulmonary vascular, and respiratory neuromuscular disorders all feature in COVID-19. This article reviews what is known about the effects of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection on different parts of the respiratory system, clues to understanding the underlying biology of respiratory disease, and highlights current and future translation and clinical research questions.


Subject(s)
Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , Coronavirus Infections/virology , Lung/virology , Pneumonia, Viral/virology , Respiration , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/virology , Respiratory Insufficiency/virology , Translational Research, Biomedical , Animals , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Host-Pathogen Interactions , Humans , Lung/physiopathology , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Prognosis , Pulmonary Embolism/physiopathology , Pulmonary Embolism/therapy , Pulmonary Embolism/virology , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/physiopathology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/diagnosis , Respiratory Insufficiency/physiopathology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Risk Factors , SARS-CoV-2 , Venous Thromboembolism/physiopathology , Venous Thromboembolism/therapy , Venous Thromboembolism/virology
4.
Respir Care ; 66(3): 366-377, 2021 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-724739

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: During the COVID-19 pandemic, a need for innovative, inexpensive, and simple ventilator devices for mass use has emerged. The Oxylator (CPR Medical Devices, Markham, Ontario, Canada) is an FDA-approved, fist-size, portable ventilation device developed for out-of-hospital emergency ventilation. It has not been tested in conditions of severe lung injury or with added PEEP. We aimed to assess the performance and reliability of the device in simulated and experimental conditions of severe lung injury, and to derive monitoring methods to allow the delivery of safe, individualized ventilation during situations of surge. METHODS: We bench-tested the functioning of the device with an added PEEP valve extensively, mimicking adult patients with various respiratory mechanics during controlled ventilation, spontaneous breathing, and prolonged unstable conditions where mechanics or breathing effort was changed at every breath. The device was further tested on a porcine model (4 animals) after inducing lung injury, and these results were compared with conventional ventilation modes. RESULTS: The device was stable and predictable, delivering a constant flow (30 L/min) and cycling automatically at the inspiratory pressure set (minimum of 20 cm H2O) above auto-PEEP. Changes in respiratory mechanics manifested as changes in respiratory timing, allowing prediction of tidal volumes from breathing frequency. Simulating lung injury resulted in relatively low tidal volumes (330 mL with compliance of 20 mL/cm H2O). In the porcine model, arterial oxygenation, CO2, and pH were comparable to conventional modes of ventilation. CONCLUSIONS: The Oxylator is a simple device that delivered stable ventilation with tidal volumes within a clinically acceptable range in bench and porcine lung models with low compliance. External monitoring of respiratory timing is advisable, allowing tidal volume estimation and recognition of changes in respiratory mechanics. The device can be an efficient, low-cost, and practical rescue solution for providing short-term ventilatory support as a temporary bridge, but it requires a caregiver at the bedside.


Subject(s)
Respiratory Insufficiency , Ventilators, Mechanical , Benchmarking , COVID-19 , Equipment Design , Humans , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Respiratory Mechanics , Tidal Volume , Treatment Outcome
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL