Prone position: how understanding and clinical application of a technique progress with time

Historical background The prone position was first proposed on theoretical background in 1974 (more advantageous distribution of mechanical ventilation). The first clinical report on 5 ARDS patients in 1976 showed remarkable improvement of oxygenation after pronation. Pathophysiology The findings in CT scans enhanced the use of prone position in ARDS patients. The main mechanism of the improved gas exchange seen in the prone position is nowadays attributed to a dorsal ventilatory recruitment, with a substantially unchanged distribution of perfusion. Regardless of the gas exchange, the primary effect of the prone position is a more homogenous distribution of ventilation, stress and strain, with similar size of pulmonary units in dorsal and ventral regions. In contrast, in the supine position the ventral regions are more expanded compared with the dorsal regions, which leads to greater ventral stress and strain, induced by mechanical ventilation. Outcome in ARDS The number of clinical studies paralleled the evolution of the pathophysiological understanding. The first two clinical trials in 2001 and 2004 were based on the hypothesis that better oxygenation would lead to a better survival and the studies were more focused on gas exchange than on lung mechanics. The equations better oxygenation = better survival was disproved by these and other larger trials (ARMA trial). However, the first studies provided signals that some survival advantages were possible in a more severe ARDS, where both oxygenation and lung mechanics were impaired. The PROSEVA trial finally showed the benefits of prone position on mortality supporting the thesis that the clinical advantages of prone position, instead of improved gas exchange, were mainly due to a less harmful mechanical ventilation and better distribution of stress and strain. In less severe ARDS, in spite of a better gas exchange, reduced mechanical stress and strain, and improved oxygenation, prone position was ineffective on outcome. Prone position and COVID-19 The mechanisms of oxygenation impairment in early COVID-19 are different than in typical ARDS and relate more on perfusion alteration than on alveolar consolidation/collapse, which are minimal in the early phase. Bronchial shunt may also contribute to the early COVID-19 hypoxemia. Therefore, in this phase, the oxygenation improvement in prone position is due to a better matching of local ventilation and perfusion, primarily caused by the perfusion component. Unfortunately, the conditions for improved outcomes, i.e. a better distribution of stress and strain, are almost absent in this phase of COVID-19 disease, as the lung parenchyma is nearly fully inflated. Due to some contradictory results, further studies are needed to better investigate the effect of prone position on outcome in COVID-19 patients. Graphical

Differences in clinical characteristics and quantitative lung CT features between vaccinated and not vaccinated hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Italy.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the differences in the clinical characteristics and severity of lung impairment, assessed by quantitative lung CT scan, between vaccinated and non-vaccinated hospitalized patients with COVID-19; and to identify the variables with best prognostic prediction according to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status. We recorded clinical, laboratory and quantitative lung CT scan data in 684 consecutive patients [580 (84.8%) vaccinated, and 104 (15.2%) non-vaccinated], admitted between January and December 2021. RESULTS: Vaccinated patients were significantly older 78 [69-84] vs 67 [53-79] years and with more comorbidities. Vaccinated and non-vaccinated patients had similar PaO2/FiO2 (300 [252-342] vs 307 [247-357] mmHg; respiratory rate 22 [8-26] vs 19 [18-26] bpm); total lung weight (918 [780-1069] vs 954 [802-1149] g), lung gas volume (2579 [1801-3628] vs 2370 [1675-3289] mL) and non-aerated tissue fraction (10 [7.3-16.0] vs 8.5 [6.0-14.1] %). The overall crude hospital mortality was similar between the vaccinated and non-vaccinated group (23.1% vs 21.2%). However, Cox regression analysis, adjusted for age, ethnicity, age unadjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index and calendar month of admission, showed a 40% reduction in hospital mortality in the vaccinated patients (HRadj = 0.60, 95%CI 0.38-0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized vaccinated patients with COVID-19, although older and with more comorbidities, presented a similar impairment in gas exchange and lung CT scan compared to non-vaccinated patients, but were at a lower risk of mortality.

Pathophysiology of COVID-19 pneumonia and respiratory treatment.

COVID-19 pandemic has seen an unprecedented number of patients presenting with acute respiratory distress syndrome to the intensive care units all over the world. Between August and November 2022, we performed research on PubMed screening all publications on COVID-19 disease and respiratory failure and its treatment. In this review we focused on COVID-19 most common manifestations concerning lung function. The respiratory infection develops in three broad phases: early, intermediate, and late. The mainstay of the disease is the frequent presence of severe hypoxemia associated - at least at the beginning - to a near normal lung mechanics and PaCO2 tension. The management of symptomatic patients, progressing through these temporal phases, is not possible without understanding the pathophysiology underlying the respiratory manifestation.

End-Tidal to Arterial Pco2 Ratio as Guide to Weaning from Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

Rationale: Weaning from venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) is based on oxygenation and not on carbon dioxide elimination. Objectives: To predict readiness to wean from VV-ECMO. Methods: In this multicenter study of mechanically ventilated adults with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome receiving VV-ECMO, we investigated a variable based on CO2 elimination. The study included a prospective interventional study of a physiological cohort (n = 26) and a retrospective clinical cohort (n = 638). Measurements and Main Results: Weaning failure in the clinical and physiological cohorts were 37% and 42%, respectively. The main cause of failure in the physiological cohort was high inspiratory effort or respiratory rate. All patients exhaled similar amounts of CO2, but in patients who failed the weaning trial, [Formula: see text]e was higher to maintain the PaCO2 unchanged. The effort to eliminate one unit-volume of CO2, was double in patients who failed (68.9 [42.4-123] vs. 39 [20.1-57] cm H2O/[L/min]; P = 0.007), owing to the higher physiological Vd (68 [58.73] % vs. 54 [41.64] %; P = 0.012). End-tidal partial carbon dioxide pressure (PetCO2)/PaCO2 ratio was a clinical variable strongly associated with weaning outcome at baseline, with area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.87 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.71-1). Similarly, the PetCO2/PaCO2 ratio was associated with weaning outcome in the clinical cohort both before the weaning trial (odds ratio, 4.14; 95% CI, 1.32-12.2; P = 0.015) and at a sweep gas flow of zero (odds ratio, 13.1; 95% CI, 4-44.4; P < 0.001). Conclusions: The primary reason for weaning failure from VV-ECMO is high effort to eliminate CO2. A higher PetCO2/PaCO2 ratio was associated with greater likelihood of weaning from VV-ECMO.