Time to Extubation among ARDS Subjects with and without COVID-19 Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia from COVID-19 that results in ARDS may require invasive mechanical ventilation. This retrospective study assessed the characteristics and outcomes of subjects with COVID-19-associated ARDS versus ARDS (non-COVID) during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The primary objective was to determine whether mechanical ventilation duration differed between these cohorts and identify other potential contributory factors. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 73 subjects admitted between March 1 and August 12, 2020, with either COVID-19-associated ARDS (37) or ARDS (36) who were managed with the lung protective ventilator protocol and required > 48 h of mechanical ventilation. Exclusion criteria were the following: <18 years old or the patient required tracheostomy or interfacility transfer. Demographic and baseline clinical data were collected at ARDS onset (ARDS day 0), with subsequent data collected on ARDS days 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 14, and 21. Comparisons were made by using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test (continuous variables) and chi-square test (categorical variables) stratified by COVID-19 status. A Cox proportional hazards model assessed the cause-specific hazard ratio for extubation. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) mechanical ventilation duration among the subjects who survived to extubation was longer in those with COVID-19-ARDS versus the subjects with non-COVID ARDS: 10 (6-20) d versus 4 (2-8) d; P < .001. Hospital mortality was not different between the two groups (22% vs 39%; P = .11). The competing risks Cox proportional hazard analysis (fit among the total sample, including non-survivors) revealed that improved compliance of the respiratory system and oxygenation were associated with the probability of extubation. Oxygenation improved at a lower rate in the subjects with COVID-19-associated ARDS than in the subjects with non-COVID ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical ventilation duration was longer in subjects with COVID-19-associated ARDS compared with the subjects with non-COVID ARDS, which may be explained by a lower rate of improvement in oxygenation status.

Respiratory Drive, Dyspnea, and Silent Hypoxemia: A Physiological Review in the Context of COVID-19.

Infection with SARS-CoV-2 in select individuals results in viral sepsis, pneumonia, and hypoxemic respiratory failure, collectively known as COVID-19. In the early months of the pandemic, the combination of novel disease presentation, enormous surges of critically ill patients, and severity of illness lent to early observations and pronouncements regarding COVID-19 that could not be scientifically validated owing to crisis circumstances. One of these was a phenomenon referred to as "happy hypoxia." Widely discussed in the lay press, it was thought to represent a novel and perplexing phenomenon: severe hypoxemia coupled with the absence of respiratory distress and dyspnea. Silent hypoxemia is the preferred term describing an apparent lack of distress in the presence of hypoxemia. However, the phenomenon is well known among respiratory physiologists as hypoxic ventilatory decline. Silent hypoxemia can be explained by physiologic mechanisms governing the control of breathing, breathing perception, and cardiovascular compensation. This narrative review examines silent hypoxemia during COVID-19 as well as hypotheses that viral infection of the central and peripheral nervous system may be implicated. Moreover, the credulous embrace of happy hypoxia and the novel hypotheses proposed to explain it has exposed significant misunderstandings among clinicians regarding the physiologic mechanisms governing both the control of breathing and the modulation of breathing sensations. Therefore, a substantial focus of this paper is to provide an in-depth review of these topics.

2020 Year in Review: Mechanical Ventilation During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) represents the greatest medical crisis encountered in the young history of critical care and respiratory care. During the early months of the pandemic, when little was known about the virus, the acute hypoxemic respiratory failure it caused did not appear to fit conveniently or consistently into our classification of ARDS. This not only re-ignited a half-century's long simmering debate over taxonomy, but also fueled similar debates over how PEEP and lung-protective ventilation should be titrated, as well as the appropriate role of noninvasive ventilation in ARDS. COVID-19 ignited other debates on emerging concepts such as ARDS phenotypes and patient self-inflicted lung injury from vigorous spontaneous breathing. Over a year later, these early perplexities have receded into the background without having been reviewed or resolved. With a full year of evidence having been published, this narrative review systematically analyzes whether COVID-19-associated respiratory failure is essentially ARDS, with perhaps a somewhat different course of presentation. This includes a review of the severity of hypoxemia and derangements in pulmonary mechanics, PEEP requirements, recruitment potential, ability to achieve lung-protective ventilation goals, duration of mechanical ventilation, associated mortality, and response to noninvasive ventilation. This paper also reviews the concepts of ARDS phenotypes and patient self-inflicted lung injury as these are crucial to understanding the contentious debate over the nature and management of COVID-19.

Effects of Inhaled Epoprostenol and Prone Positioning in Intubated Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients With Refractory Hypoxemia.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of inhaled epoprostenol and prone positioning, individually and in combination in mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 and refractory hypoxemia. DESIGN: Retrospective study. SETTING: Academic hospital adult ICUs. PATIENTS: Adult patients who received inhaled epoprostenol and prone positioning during invasive ventilation were enrolled. Patients were excluded if inhaled epoprostenol was initiated: 1) at an outside hospital, 2) after prone positioning was terminated, 3) during extracorporeal membrane oxygenation or cardiopulmonary resuscitation, and 4) with Pao2/Fio2 greater than 150 mm Hg. INTERVENTIONS: Inhaled epoprostenol and prone positioning. RESULTS: Of the 43 eligible patients, 22 and seven received prone positioning and inhaled epoprostenol alone, respectively, prior to their use in combination, Pao2/Fio2 was not different pre- and post-prone positioning or inhaled epoprostenol individually (89.1 [30.6] vs 97.6 [30.2] mm Hg; p = 0.393) but improved after the combined use of inhaled epoprostenol and prone positioning (84.0 [25.6] vs 124.7 [62.7] mm Hg; p < 0.001). While inhaled epoprostenol and prone positioning were instituted simultaneously in 14 patients, Pao2/Fio2 was significantly improved (78.9 [27.0] vs 150.2 [56.2] mm Hg, p = 0.005) with the combination. Twenty-seven patients (63%) had greater than 20% improvement in oxygenation with the combination of inhaled epoprostenol and prone positioning, and responders had lower mortality than nonresponders (52 vs 81%; p = 0.025). CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019 who had refractory hypoxemia, oxygenation improved to a greater extent with combined use of inhaled epoprostenol and prone positioning than with each treatment individually. A higher proportion of responders to combined inhaled epoprostenol and prone positioning survived compared with nonresponders. These findings need to be validated by randomized, prospective clinical trials.

End-Tidal-to-Arterial PCO2 Ratio as Signifier for Physiologic Dead-Space Ratio and Oxygenation Dysfunction in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: The ratio of end-tidal CO2 pressure to arterial partial pressure of CO2 ([Formula: see text]) was recently suggested for monitoring pulmonary gas exchange in patients with ARDS associated with COVID-19, yet no evidence was offered supporting that claim. Therefore, we evaluated whether [Formula: see text] might be relevant in assessing ARDS not associated with COVID-19. METHODS: We evaluated the correspondence between [Formula: see text] and the ratio of dead space to tidal volume (VD/VT) measured in 561 subjects with ARDS from a previous study in whom [Formula: see text] data were also available. Subjects also were analyzed according to 4 ranges of [Formula: see text] representing increasing illness severity (≥ 0.80, 0.6-0.79, 0.50-0.59, and < 0.50). Correlation was assessed by either Pearson or Spearman tests, grouped comparisons were assessed using either ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis tests and dichotomous variables assessed by Fisher Exact tests. Normally distributed data are presented as mean and standard deviation(SD) and non-normal data are presented as median and inter-quartile range (IQR). Overall mortality risk was assessed with multivariate logistic regression. Alpha was set at 0.05. RESULTS: [Formula: see text] correlated strongly with VD/VT (r = -0.87 [95% CI -0.89 to -0.85], P < .001). Decreasing [Formula: see text] was associated with increased VD/VT and hospital mortality between all groups. In the univariate analysis, for every 0.01 decrease in [Formula: see text], mortality risk increased by ∼1% (odds ratio 0.009, 95% CI 0.003-0.029, P < .001) and maintained a strong independent association with mortality risk when adjusted for other variables (odds ratio 0.19, 95% CI 0.04-0.91, P = .039). [Formula: see text] < 0.50 was characterized by very high mean ± SD value for VD/VT (0.82 ± 0.05, P < .001) and high hospital mortality (70%). CONCLUSIONS: Using [Formula: see text] as a surrogate for VD/VT may be a useful and practical measurement for both management and ongoing research into the nature of ARDS.