Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 63
Filter
1.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 2022 May 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1857982

ABSTRACT

RATIONALE: Weaning from veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) is based on oxygenation and not on carbon dioxide elimination. OBJECTIVE: To predict readiness to wean from VV-ECMO Methods: In this multicenter study of mechanically ventilated adults with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) 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 respectively 37% and 42%. 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 minute ventilation was higher to maintain the PaCO2 unchanged. The effort to eliminate one unit-volume of CO2, was double in failing patients [68·9 (42·4-123) vs. 39 (20·1-57) [cmH2O/(L/min)], p=0.007], owing to the higher physiological dead space [68 (58.73) % vs. 54 (41,.64) %; p=0.012]. PetCO2/PaCO2 ratio was a clinical variable strongly associated with weaning outcome at baseline was the, AUC: 0.87 (95%CI 0·71 - one). Similarly, the PetCO2/PaCO2 ratio was associated with weaning outcome in the "clinical cohort" both pre-weaning trial (OR 4·14; 95% CI 1·32 - 12·2; p=0·015), and at a sweep gas flow of zero (OR 13·1; 95% CI 4-44·4; p<0·001). CONCLUSION: 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.

3.
BMJ ; 377: e069739, 2022 04 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1816733

ABSTRACT

Pregnant women with covid-19 are at greater risk of severe disease than their non-pregnant peers, and yet they are frequently denied investigations or treatments because of unfounded concerns about risk to the fetus. The basic principles of diagnosing and managing covid-19 are the same as for non-pregnant patients, and a multidisciplinary, expert team approach is essential to ensure optimal care. During pregnancy, treatment with corticosteroids should be modified to use non-fluorinated glucocorticoids. Il-6 inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies, together with specific antiviral therapies, may also be considered. Prophylaxis against venous thromboembolism is important. Women may require respiratory support with oxygen, non-invasive ventilation, ventilation in a prone position (either awake or during invasive ventilation), intubation and ventilation, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Pregnancy is not a contraindication for any of these supportive therapies, and the criteria for providing them are the same as in the general population. Decisions regarding timing, place, and mode of delivery should be taken with a multidisciplinary team including obstetricians, physicians, anesthetists, and intensivists experienced in the care of covid-19 in pregnancy. Ideally these decisions should take place in consultation with centers that have experience and expertise in all these specialties.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Noninvasive Ventilation , COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Oxygen , Pregnancy , Respiration, Artificial
4.
Respir Res ; 23(1): 101, 2022 Apr 26.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1813343

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) is widely available on mechanical ventilators and has been proposed as an early intervention to prevent lung injury or as a rescue therapy in the management of refractory hypoxemia. Driving pressure ([Formula: see text]) has been identified in numerous studies as a key indicator of ventilator-induced-lung-injury that needs to be carefully controlled. [Formula: see text] delivered by the ventilator in APRV is not directly measurable in dynamic conditions, and there is no "gold standard" method for its estimation. METHODS: We used a computational simulator matched to data from 90 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to evaluate the accuracy of three "at-the-bedside" methods for estimating ventilator [Formula: see text] during APRV. RESULTS: Levels of [Formula: see text] delivered by the ventilator in APRV were generally within safe limits, but in some cases exceeded levels specified by protective ventilation strategies. A formula based on estimating the intrinsic positive end expiratory pressure present at the end of the APRV release provided the most accurate estimates of [Formula: see text]. A second formula based on assuming that expiratory flow, volume and pressure decay mono-exponentially, and a third method that requires temporarily switching to volume-controlled ventilation, also provided accurate estimates of true [Formula: see text]. CONCLUSIONS: Levels of [Formula: see text] delivered by the ventilator during APRV can potentially exceed levels specified by standard protective ventilation strategies, highlighting the need for careful monitoring. Our results show that [Formula: see text] delivered by the ventilator during APRV can be accurately estimated at the bedside using simple formulae that are based on readily available measurements.


Subject(s)
Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury , Computer Simulation , Continuous Positive Airway Pressure/methods , Humans , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/diagnosis , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury/prevention & control , Ventilators, Mechanical
5.
Intensive Care Med ; 48(4): 467-478, 2022 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1777708

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) has become an established therapy for severe respiratory failure in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The added benefit of receiving ECMO in COVID-19 remains uncertain. The aim of this study is to analyse the impact of receiving ECMO at specialist centres on hospital mortality. METHODS: A multi-centre retrospective study was conducted in COVID-19 patients from 111 hospitals, referred to two specialist ECMO centres in the United Kingdom (UK) (March 2020 to February 2021). Detailed covariate data were contemporaneously curated from electronic referral systems. We analysed added benefit of ECMO treatment in specialist centres using propensity score matching techniques. RESULTS: 1363 patients, 243 receiving ECMO, were analysed. The best matching technique generated 209 matches, with a marginal odds ratio (OR) for mortality of 0.44 (95% CI 0.29-0.68, p < 0.001) and absolute mortality reduction of 18.2% (44% vs 25.8%, p < 0.001) for treatment with ECMO in a specialist centre. CONCLUSION: We found ECMO provided at specialist centres conferred significant survival benefit. Where resources and specialism allow, ECMO should be widely offered.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , COVID-19/therapy , Cohort Studies , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation/methods , Humans , Retrospective Studies
6.
Crit Care Med ; 50(4): 624-632, 2022 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1769408

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Coronavirus disease 2019 has been reported to be a prothrombotic condition; however, multicenter data comparing this with other viral pneumonias in those requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation are lacking. We conducted a multicenter study using whole-body CT to examine the prevalence, severity, and nature of vascular complications in coronavirus disease 2019 in comparison with patients with other viral pneumonias. DESIGN: We analyzed whole-body CT scans for the presence of vascular thrombosis (defined as pulmonary artery thrombus, venous thrombus, systemic arterial thrombus, or end-organ infarct). The severity, distribution, and morphology of pulmonary artery thrombus were characterized. Competing risk cumulative incidence analysis was used to compare survival with discharge. SETTING: Three centers of the English national extracorporeal membrane oxygenation service. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients admitted with either coronavirus disease 2019 or noncoronavirus disease 2019 viral pneumonia admitted from January 2019. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One-hundred thirty-six patients (45.2 ± 10.6 yr old, 39/146 [27%] female) requiring extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support underwent whole-body CT scans at admission. Of these, 86 had coronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia, and 50 had noncoronavirus disease 2019 viral pneumonia. Vascular thrombosis was seen more often in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (odds ratio, 12.9 [95% CI 4.5-36.8]). In those with coronavirus disease 2019, 57 (73%) demonstrated pulmonary artery thrombus or pulmonary perfusion defects. Eighty-two percent of thrombus exhibited emboli-like morphology. The location of pulmonary artery thrombus and parenchymal perfusion defects was only concordant in 30% of cases. The risk of mortality was higher in those with coronavirus disease 2019 compared with noncoronavirus disease 2019 pneumonia (χ2 = 3.94; p = 0.047). Mortality was no different in coronavirus disease 2019 patients with or without vascular thrombosis (χ2 = 0.44; p = 0.51). CONCLUSIONS: In patients who received extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, coronavirus disease 2019 is associated with a higher prevalence of vascular thrombosis compared with noncoronavirus disease viral pneumonias. The pattern of pulmonary vascular changes suggests concurrent embolic disease and small vessel disease. Despite this, vascular thrombosis was not linked to poorer short-term prognosis in those with coronavirus disease 2019.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Thrombosis/etiology , Adult , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Prognosis , Thrombosis/diagnostic imaging , Tomography, X-Ray Computed
7.
Crit Care Med ; 50(4): 633-643, 2022 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1764678

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Prone position is used in acute respiratory distress syndrome and in coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, it is unclear how responders may be identified and whether an oxygenation response improves outcome. The objective of this study was to quantify the response to prone position, describe the differences between coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and explore variables associated with survival. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational, multicenter, international cohort study. SETTING: Seven ICUs in Italy, United Kingdom, and France. PATIENTS: Three hundred seventy-six adults (220 coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome and 156 acute respiratory distress syndrome). INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Preproning, a greater proportion of coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients had severe disease (53% vs 40%), worse Pao2/Fio2 (13.0 kPa [interquartile range, 10.5-15.5 kPa] vs 14.1 kPa [interquartile range, 10.5-18.6 kPa]; p = 0.017) but greater compliance (38 mL/cm H2O [interquartile range, 27-53 mL/cm H2O] vs 31 mL/cm H2O [interquartile range, 21-37 mL/cm H2O]; p < 0.001). Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome had a longer median time from intubation to prone position (2.0 d [interquartile range, 0.7-5.0 d] vs 1.0 d [interquartile range, 0.5-2.9 d]; p = 0.03). The proportion of responders, defined by an increase in Pao2/Fio2 greater than or equal to 2.67 kPa (20 mm Hg), upon proning, was similar between acute respiratory distress syndrome and coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome (79% vs 76%; p = 0.5). Responders had earlier prone position (1.4 d [interquartile range, 0.7-4.2 d] vs 2.5 d [interquartile range, 0.8-6.2 d]; p = 0.06)]. Prone position less than 24 hours from intubation achieved greater improvement in oxygenation (11 kPa [interquartile range, 4-21 kPa] vs 7 kPa [interquartile range, 2-13 kPa]; p = 0.002). The variables independently associated with the "responder" category were Pao2/Fio2 preproning (odds ratio, 0.89 kPa-1 [95% CI, 0.85-0.93 kPa-1]; p < 0.001) and interval between intubation and proning (odds ratio, 0.94 d-1 [95% CI, 0.89-0.99 d-1]; p = 0.019). The overall mortality was 45%, with no significant difference observed between acute respiratory distress syndrome and coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome. Variables independently associated with mortality included age (odds ratio, 1.03 yr-1 [95% CI, 1.01-1.05 yr-1]; p < 0.001); interval between hospital admission and proning (odds ratio, 1.04 d-1 [95% CI, 1.002-1.084 d-1]; p = 0.047); and change in Pao2/Fio2 on proning (odds ratio, 0.97 kPa-1 [95% CI, 0.95-0.99 kPa-1]; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Prone position, particularly when delivered early, achieved a significant oxygenation response in ~80% of coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome, similar to acute respiratory distress syndrome. This response was independently associated with improved survival.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Prone Position , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Aged , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/physiopathology , Europe , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Lung/physiopathology , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Patient Positioning , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/physiopathology , Respiratory Function Tests , Retrospective Studies
9.
Br J Anaesth ; 128(6): 1052-1058, 2022 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1748195

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Optimal respiratory support in early COVID-19 pneumonia is controversial and remains unclear. Using computational modelling, we examined whether lung injury might be exacerbated in early COVID-19 by assessing the impact of conventional oxygen therapy (COT), high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNOT), continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP), and noninvasive ventilation (NIV). METHODS: Using an established multi-compartmental cardiopulmonary simulator, we first modelled COT at a fixed FiO2 (0.6) with elevated respiratory effort for 30 min in 120 spontaneously breathing patients, before initiating HFNOT, CPAP, or NIV. Respiratory effort was then reduced progressively over 30-min intervals. Oxygenation, respiratory effort, and lung stress/strain were quantified. Lung-protective mechanical ventilation was also simulated in the same cohort. RESULTS: HFNOT, CPAP, and NIV improved oxygenation compared with conventional therapy, but also initially increased total lung stress and strain. Improved oxygenation with CPAP reduced respiratory effort but lung stress/strain remained elevated for CPAP >5 cm H2O. With reduced respiratory effort, HFNOT maintained better oxygenation and reduced total lung stress, with no increase in total lung strain. Compared with 10 cm H2O PEEP, 4 cm H2O PEEP in NIV reduced total lung stress, but high total lung strain persisted even with less respiratory effort. Lung-protective mechanical ventilation improved oxygenation while minimising lung injury. CONCLUSIONS: The failure of noninvasive ventilatory support to reduce respiratory effort may exacerbate pulmonary injury in patients with early COVID-19 pneumonia. HFNOT reduces lung strain and achieves similar oxygenation to CPAP/NIV. Invasive mechanical ventilation may be less injurious than noninvasive support in patients with high respiratory effort.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Lung Injury , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , COVID-19/therapy , Computer Simulation , Humans , Oxygen , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy
10.
Crit Care Med ; 50(4): 633-643, 2022 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1746205

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVES: Prone position is used in acute respiratory distress syndrome and in coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome. However, it is unclear how responders may be identified and whether an oxygenation response improves outcome. The objective of this study was to quantify the response to prone position, describe the differences between coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome and acute respiratory distress syndrome, and explore variables associated with survival. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational, multicenter, international cohort study. SETTING: Seven ICUs in Italy, United Kingdom, and France. PATIENTS: Three hundred seventy-six adults (220 coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome and 156 acute respiratory distress syndrome). INTERVENTION: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Preproning, a greater proportion of coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients had severe disease (53% vs 40%), worse Pao2/Fio2 (13.0 kPa [interquartile range, 10.5-15.5 kPa] vs 14.1 kPa [interquartile range, 10.5-18.6 kPa]; p = 0.017) but greater compliance (38 mL/cm H2O [interquartile range, 27-53 mL/cm H2O] vs 31 mL/cm H2O [interquartile range, 21-37 mL/cm H2O]; p < 0.001). Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome had a longer median time from intubation to prone position (2.0 d [interquartile range, 0.7-5.0 d] vs 1.0 d [interquartile range, 0.5-2.9 d]; p = 0.03). The proportion of responders, defined by an increase in Pao2/Fio2 greater than or equal to 2.67 kPa (20 mm Hg), upon proning, was similar between acute respiratory distress syndrome and coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome (79% vs 76%; p = 0.5). Responders had earlier prone position (1.4 d [interquartile range, 0.7-4.2 d] vs 2.5 d [interquartile range, 0.8-6.2 d]; p = 0.06)]. Prone position less than 24 hours from intubation achieved greater improvement in oxygenation (11 kPa [interquartile range, 4-21 kPa] vs 7 kPa [interquartile range, 2-13 kPa]; p = 0.002). The variables independently associated with the "responder" category were Pao2/Fio2 preproning (odds ratio, 0.89 kPa-1 [95% CI, 0.85-0.93 kPa-1]; p < 0.001) and interval between intubation and proning (odds ratio, 0.94 d-1 [95% CI, 0.89-0.99 d-1]; p = 0.019). The overall mortality was 45%, with no significant difference observed between acute respiratory distress syndrome and coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome. Variables independently associated with mortality included age (odds ratio, 1.03 yr-1 [95% CI, 1.01-1.05 yr-1]; p < 0.001); interval between hospital admission and proning (odds ratio, 1.04 d-1 [95% CI, 1.002-1.084 d-1]; p = 0.047); and change in Pao2/Fio2 on proning (odds ratio, 0.97 kPa-1 [95% CI, 0.95-0.99 kPa-1]; p = 0.002). CONCLUSIONS: Prone position, particularly when delivered early, achieved a significant oxygenation response in ~80% of coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome, similar to acute respiratory distress syndrome. This response was independently associated with improved survival.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Prone Position , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Aged , COVID-19/complications , COVID-19/physiopathology , Europe , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Lung/physiopathology , Male , Middle Aged , Odds Ratio , Patient Positioning , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/physiopathology , Respiratory Function Tests , Retrospective Studies
11.
Eur J Intern Med ; 92: 31-33, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1706462

Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2
12.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-321343

ABSTRACT

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has resulted in a significant surge of critically ill patients and an unprecedented demand on intensive care services. The rapidly evolving understanding of pathogenesis, limited disease specific evidence and demand-resource imbalances have posed significant challenges for intensive care clinicians. COVID-19 is a complex multisystem inflammatory vasculopathy with a significant mortality implication for those admitted to intensive care. Institutional strategic preparation and meticulous intensive care support are essential to maximising outcomes during the pandemic. The significant mortality variation observed between institutions and internationally, despite a single aetiology and uniform presentation, highlights the potential influence of management strategies on outcome. Given that optimal organ support and adjunctive therapies for COVID-19 have not yet been well defined by trial-based outcomes, strategies are predicated on existing literature and experiential learning. This review outlines the relevant pathophysiology and management strategies for critically ill patients with COVID-19, and shares some of the collective learning accumulated in a high volume Severe Respiratory Failure centre in London.

13.
EuropePMC; 2020.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-321342

ABSTRACT

The rapidly evolving understanding of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) respiratory failure pathogenesis, limited disease-specific evidence and demand-resource imbalances have posed significant challenges for intensive care clinicians. In this single-centre retrospective cohort study we describe the outcomes of COVID-19 patients admitted to Guy’s and St. Thomas’NHS Foundation Trust (GSTT) critical care service. Patients were managed according to a local respiratory failure management pathway that was predicated on timely invasive ventilation when indicated and tailored ventilatory strategies according to pulmonary mechanics. Between 2nd March and 25th May 2020 GSTT critical care service admitted 316 patients with confirmed COVID-19. Of the 201 patients admitted directly through the Emergency Department with a completed critical care outcome, 71.1% survived to critical care discharge. These favourable outcomes may serve to inform the wider debate on the optimal ventilatory management in COVID-19.

14.
EBioMedicine ; 76: 103868, 2022 Feb.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1676709

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The manufacturing of any standard mechanical ventilator cannot rapidly be upscaled to several thousand units per week, largely due to supply chain limitations. The aim of this study was to design, verify and perform a pre-clinical evaluation of a mechanical ventilator based on components not required for standard ventilators, and that met the specifications provided by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) for rapidly-manufactured ventilator systems (RMVS). METHODS: The design utilises closed-loop negative feedback control, with real-time monitoring and alarms. Using a standard test lung, we determined the difference between delivered and target tidal volume (VT) at respiratory rates between 20 and 29 breaths per minute, and the ventilator's ability to deliver consistent VT during continuous operation for >14 days (RMVS specification). Additionally, four anaesthetised domestic pigs (3 male-1 female) were studied before and after lung injury to provide evidence of the ventilator's functionality, and ability to support spontaneous breathing. FINDINGS: Continuous operation lasted 23 days, when the greatest difference between delivered and target VT was 10% at inspiratory flow rates >825 mL/s. In the pre-clinical evaluation, the VT difference was -1 (-90 to 88) mL [mean (LoA)], and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) difference was -2 (-8 to 4) cmH2O. VT delivery being triggered by pressures below PEEP demonstrated spontaneous ventilation support. INTERPRETATION: The mechanical ventilator presented meets the MHRA therapy standards for RMVS and, being based on largely available components, can be manufactured at scale. FUNDING: Work supported by Wellcome/EPSRC Centre for Medical Engineering,King's Together Fund and Oxford University.


Subject(s)
Equipment Design , Respiration, Artificial/instrumentation , Animals , COVID-19/pathology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19/virology , Female , Male , Respiratory Rate , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Swine , Tidal Volume
15.
Crit Care Med ; 50(5): 873-875, 2022 05 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1672321
17.
Curr Opin Crit Care ; 28(1): 9-16, 2022 02 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1573943

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: More than 230 million people have tested positive for severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 infection globally by September 2021. The infection affects primarily the function of the respiratory system, where ∼20% of infected individuals develop coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19) pneumonia. This review provides an update on the pathophysiology of the COVID-19 acute lung injury. RECENT FINDINGS: In patients with COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to the intensive care unit, the PaO2/FiO2 ratio is typically <26.7 kPa (200 mmHg), whereas lung volume appears relatively unchanged. This hypoxaemia is likely determined by a heterogeneous mismatch of pulmonary ventilation and perfusion, mainly associated with immunothrombosis, endothelialitis and neovascularisation. During the disease, lung weight, elastance and dead space can increase, affecting respiratory drive, effort and dyspnoea. In some severe cases, COVID-19 pneumonia may lead to irreversible pulmonary fibrosis. SUMMARY: This review summarises the fundamental pathophysiological features of COVID-19 in the context of the respiratory system. It provides an overview of the key clinical manifestations of COVID-19 pneumonia, including gas exchange impairment, altered pulmonary mechanics and implications of abnormal chemical and mechanical stimuli. It also critically discusses the clinical implications for mechanical ventilation therapy.


Subject(s)
Acute Lung Injury , COVID-19 , Humans , Lung , Respiration, Artificial/adverse effects , SARS-CoV-2
18.
Intensive Care Med ; 48(1): 56-66, 2022 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1536292

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: This study aimed at investigating the mechanisms underlying the oxygenation response to proning and recruitment maneuvers in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. METHODS: Twenty-five patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, at variable times since admission (from 1 to 3 weeks), underwent computed tomography (CT) lung scans, gas-exchange and lung-mechanics measurement in supine and prone positions at 5 cmH2O and during recruiting maneuver (supine, 35 cmH2O). Within the non-aerated tissue, we differentiated the atelectatic and consolidated tissue (recruitable and non-recruitable at 35 cmH2O of airway pressure). Positive/negative response to proning/recruitment was defined as increase/decrease of PaO2/FiO2. Apparent perfusion ratio was computed as venous admixture/non aerated tissue fraction. RESULTS: The average values of venous admixture and PaO2/FiO2 ratio were similar in supine-5 and prone-5. However, the PaO2/FiO2 changes (increasing in 65% of the patients and decreasing in 35%, from supine to prone) correlated with the balance between resolution of dorsal atelectasis and formation of ventral atelectasis (p = 0.002). Dorsal consolidated tissue determined this balance, being inversely related with dorsal recruitment (p = 0.012). From supine-5 to supine-35, the apparent perfusion ratio increased from 1.38 ± 0.71 to 2.15 ± 1.15 (p = 0.004) while PaO2/FiO2 ratio increased in 52% and decreased in 48% of patients. Non-responders had consolidated tissue fraction of 0.27 ± 0.1 vs. 0.18 ± 0.1 in the responding cohort (p = 0.04). Consolidated tissue, PaCO2 and respiratory system elastance were higher in patients assessed late (all p < 0.05), suggesting, all together, "fibrotic-like" changes of the lung over time. CONCLUSION: The amount of consolidated tissue was higher in patients assessed during the third week and determined the oxygenation responses following pronation and recruitment maneuvers.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Prone Position , Prospective Studies , Pulmonary Gas Exchange , SARS-CoV-2
19.
EuropePMC; 2021.
Preprint in English | EuropePMC | ID: ppcovidwho-293169

ABSTRACT

Positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) is routinely used as part of lung protective ventilation strategies in the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). In the case of ARDS arising due to COVID-19 (CARDS), there is some debate as to whether the atypical pathophysiological characteristics of the disease which lead to hypoxaemia could warrant a modified approach to ventilator management, particularly with regards to PEEP settings. Here we review the available evidence for the existence of a unique underlying lung pathophysiology in CARDS, and for the suitability of standard approaches to setting PEEP, in both the invasive and non-invasive ventilation settings. We show how detailed computational models informed by this evidence can shed light on the available data, and help to interpret recent results in the literature.

20.
Genome Med ; 13(1): 182, 2021 11 17.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1523323

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Clinical metagenomics (CMg) has the potential to be translated from a research tool into routine service to improve antimicrobial treatment and infection control decisions. The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic provides added impetus to realise these benefits, given the increased risk of secondary infection and nosocomial transmission of multi-drug-resistant (MDR) pathogens linked with the expansion of critical care capacity. METHODS: CMg using nanopore sequencing was evaluated in a proof-of-concept study on 43 respiratory samples from 34 intubated patients across seven intensive care units (ICUs) over a 9-week period during the first COVID-19 pandemic wave. RESULTS: An 8-h CMg workflow was 92% sensitive (95% CI, 75-99%) and 82% specific (95% CI, 57-96%) for bacterial identification based on culture-positive and culture-negative samples, respectively. CMg sequencing reported the presence or absence of ß-lactam-resistant genes carried by Enterobacterales that would modify the initial guideline-recommended antibiotics in every case. CMg was also 100% concordant with quantitative PCR for detecting Aspergillus fumigatus from 4 positive and 39 negative samples. Molecular typing using 24-h sequencing data identified an MDR-K. pneumoniae ST307 outbreak involving 4 patients and an MDR-C. striatum outbreak involving 14 patients across three ICUs. CONCLUSION: CMg testing provides accurate pathogen detection and antibiotic resistance prediction in a same-day laboratory workflow, with assembled genomes available the next day for genomic surveillance. The provision of this technology in a service setting could fundamentally change the multi-disciplinary team approach to managing ICU infections. The potential to improve the initial targeted treatment and rapidly detect unsuspected outbreaks of MDR-pathogens justifies further expedited clinical assessment of CMg.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/pathology , Cross Infection/transmission , Metagenomics , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , COVID-19/virology , Coinfection/drug therapy , Coinfection/microbiology , Corynebacterium/genetics , Corynebacterium/isolation & purification , Cross Infection/microbiology , DNA, Bacterial/chemistry , DNA, Bacterial/metabolism , Drug Resistance, Multiple, Bacterial/genetics , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Klebsiella pneumoniae/genetics , Klebsiella pneumoniae/isolation & purification , Male , Middle Aged , Polymorphism, Single Nucleotide , SARS-CoV-2/isolation & purification , Sequence Analysis, DNA , beta-Lactamases/genetics
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL