Pathophysiology of Hypoxemia in COVID-19 Lung Disease.

As the pandemic has progressed, our understanding of hypoxemia in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lung disease has become more nuanced, although much remains to be understood. In this article, we review ventilation-perfusion mismatching in COVID-19 and the evidence to support various biologic theories offered in explanation. In addition, the relationship between hypoxemia and other features of severe COVID-19 lung disease such as respiratory symptoms, radiographic abnormalities, and pulmonary mechanics is explored. Recognizing and understanding hypoxemia in COVID-19 lung disease remains essential for risk stratification, prognostication, and choice of appropriate treatments in severe COVID-19.

Validity of Peripheral Oxygen Saturation Measurements with the Garmin Fenix® 5X Plus Wearable Device at 4559 m.

Decreased oxygen saturation (SO2) at high altitude is associated with potentially life-threatening diseases, e.g., high-altitude pulmonary edema. Wearable devices that allow continuous monitoring of peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2), such as the Garmin Fenix® 5X Plus (GAR), might provide early detection to prevent hypoxia-induced diseases. We therefore aimed to validate GAR-derived SpO2 readings at 4559 m. SpO2 was measured with GAR and the medically certified Covidien Nellcor SpO2 monitor (COV) at six time points in 13 healthy lowlanders after a rapid ascent from 1130 m to 4559 m. Arterial blood gas (ABG) analysis served as the criterion measure and was conducted at four of the six time points with the Radiometer ABL 90 Flex. Validity was assessed by intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), mean absolute percentage error (MAPE), and Bland-Altman plots. Mean (±SD) SO2, including all time points at 4559 m, was 85.2 ± 6.2% with GAR, 81.0 ± 9.4% with COV, and 75.0 ± 9.5% with ABG. Validity of GAR was low, as indicated by the ICC (0.549), the MAPE (9.77%), the mean SO2 difference (7.0%), and the wide limits of agreement (-6.5; 20.5%) vs. ABG. Validity of COV was good, as indicated by the ICC (0.883), the MAPE (6.15%), and the mean SO2 difference (0.1%) vs. ABG. The GAR device demonstrated poor validity and cannot be recommended for monitoring SpO2 at high altitude.

The Pathophysiology and Dangers of Silent Hypoxemia in COVID-19 Lung Injury.

The ongoing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has been unprecedented on many levels, not least of which are the challenges in understanding the pathophysiology of these new critically ill patients. One widely reported phenomenon is that of a profoundly hypoxemic patient with minimal to no dyspnea out of proportion to the extent of radiographic abnormality and change in lung compliance. This apparently unique presentation, sometimes called "happy hypoxemia or hypoxia" but better described as "silent hypoxemia," has led to the speculation of underlying pathophysiological differences between COVID-19 lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from other causes. We explore three proposed distinctive features of COVID-19 that likely bear on the genesis of silent hypoxemia, including differences in lung compliance, pulmonary vascular responses to hypoxia, and nervous system sensing and response to hypoxemia. In the context of known principles of respiratory physiology and neurobiology, we discuss whether these particular findings are due to direct viral effects or, equally plausible, are within the spectrum of typical ARDS pathophysiology and the wide range of hypoxic ventilatory and pulmonary vascular responses and dyspnea perception in healthy people. Comparisons between lung injury patterns in COVID-19 and other causes of ARDS are clouded by the extent and severity of this pandemic, which may underlie the description of "new" phenotypes, although our ability to confirm these phenotypes by more invasive and longitudinal studies is limited. However, given the uncertainty about anything unique in the pathophysiology of COVID-19 lung injury, there are no compelling pathophysiological reasons at present to support a therapeutic approach for these patients that is different from the proven standards of care in ARDS.