Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 15 de 15
Filter
1.
Am J Respir Crit Care Med ; 2021 Dec 03.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1551111

ABSTRACT

RATIONALE: The "Berlin definition" of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) does not allow inclusion of patients receiving high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO). However, several articles proposed that criteria for defining ARDS should be broadened to allow inclusion of patients receiving HFNO. OBJECTIVE: To compare the proportion of patients fulfilling ARDS criteria during HFNO and soon after intubation, and 28-day mortality between patients treated exclusively with HFNO and patients transitioned from HFNO to IMV. METHODS: From previously published studies we analyzed COVID-19 patients who had PaO2/FiO2 ≤300 while treated with HFNO ≥40 L/min, or NIV with PEEP ≥5 cmH2O (comparator). In patients transitioned from HFNO/NIV to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV), we compared ARDS severity during HFNO/NIV and soon after IMV. We compared 28-day mortality in patients treated exclusively with HFNO/NIV vs. transitioned to IMV. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We analyzed 184 and 131 patients receiving HFNO or NIV, respectively. 112 HFNO, and 69 NIV patients transitioned to IMV. 104 (92.9%) HFNO patients and 66 (95.7%) NIV patients continued to have PaO2/FiO2 ≤300 under IMV. 28-day mortality in patients who remained on HFNO was 4.2% (3/72) while in patients transitioned from HFNO to IMV it was 28.6% (32/112) (p<0.001). 28-day mortality in patients who remained on NIV was 1.6% (1/62), while in patients who transitioned from NIV to IMV it was 44.9% (31/69) (p<0.001). Overall mortality was 19.0% (35/184) and 24.4% (32/131) for HFNO and NIV, respectively (p=0.2479). CONCLUSIONS: Broadening ARDS definition to include HFNO patients with PaO2/FiO2 ≤300 may identify patients at earlier stages of disease but with lower mortality. This article is open access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

2.
ERJ Open Res ; 7(4)2021 Oct.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1526593

ABSTRACT

In #COVID19 patients, presence of moderate-to-severe dyspnoea is a marker of disease severity correlated to clinical outcomes https://bit.ly/3Bp2G1b.

4.
Curr Opin Crit Care ; 2021 Oct 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1483668

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Noninvasive respiratory support has been widely applied during the COVID-19 pandemic. We provide a narrative review on the benefits and possible harms of noninvasive respiratory support for COVID-19 respiratory failure. RECENT FINDINGS: Maintenance of spontaneous breathing by means of noninvasive respiratory support in hypoxemic patients with vigorous spontaneous effort carries the risk of patient self-induced lung injury: the benefit of averting intubation in successful patients should be balanced with the harms of a worse outcome in patients who are intubated after failing a trial of noninvasive support.The risk of noninvasive treatment failure is greater in patients with the most severe oxygenation impairment (PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mmHg).High-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) is the most widely applied intervention in COVID-19 patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Also, noninvasive ventilation (NIV) and continuous positive airway pressure delivered with different interfaces have been used with variable success rates. A single randomized trial showed lower need for intubation in patients receiving helmet NIV with specific settings, compared to HFNO alone.Prone positioning is recommended for moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome patients on invasive ventilation. Awake prone position has been frequently applied in COVID-19 patients: one randomized trial showed improved oxygenation and lower intubation rate in patients receiving 6-h sessions of awake prone positioning, as compared to conventional management. SUMMARY: Noninvasive respiratory support and awake prone position are tools possibly capable of averting endotracheal intubation in COVID-19 patients; carefully monitoring during any treatment is warranted to avoid delays in endotracheal intubation, especially in patients with PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mmHg.

5.
Biomedicines ; 9(9)2021 Sep 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1408456

ABSTRACT

The synergic combination of D-dimer (as proxy of thrombotic/vascular injury) and static compliance (as proxy of parenchymal injury) in predicting mortality in COVID-19-ARDS has not been systematically evaluated. The objective is to determine whether the combination of elevated D-dimer and low static compliance can predict mortality in patients with COVID-19-ARDS. A "training sample" (March-June 2020) and a "testing sample" (September 2020-January 2021) of adult patients invasively ventilated for COVID-19-ARDS were collected in nine hospitals. D-dimer and compliance in the first 24 h were recorded. Study outcome was all-cause mortality at 28-days. Cut-offs for D-dimer and compliance were identified by receiver operating characteristic curve analysis. Mutually exclusive groups were selected using classification tree analysis with chi-square automatic interaction detection. Time to death in the resulting groups was estimated with Cox regression adjusted for SOFA, sex, age, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, and sample (training/testing). "Training" and "testing" samples amounted to 347 and 296 patients, respectively. Three groups were identified: D-dimer ≤ 1880 ng/mL (LD); D-dimer > 1880 ng/mL and compliance > 41 mL/cmH2O (LD-HC); D-dimer > 1880 ng/mL and compliance ≤ 41 mL/cmH2O (HD-LC). 28-days mortality progressively increased in the three groups (from 24% to 35% and 57% (training) and from 27% to 39% and 60% (testing), respectively; p < 0.01). Adjusted mortality was significantly higher in HD-LC group compared with LD (HR = 0.479, p < 0.001) and HD-HC (HR = 0.542, p < 0.01); no difference was found between LD and HD-HC. In conclusion, combination of high D-dimer and low static compliance identifies a clinical phenotype with high mortality in COVID-19-ARDS.

6.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 197, 2021 06 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1261277

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Hospitalized patients with COVID-19 admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) and requiring mechanical ventilation are at risk of ventilator-associated bacterial infections secondary to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Our study aimed to investigate clinical features of Staphylococcus aureus ventilator-associated pneumonia (SA-VAP) and, if bronchoalveolar lavage samples were available, lung bacterial community features in ICU patients with or without COVID-19. METHODS: We prospectively included hospitalized patients with COVID-19 across two medical ICUs of the Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS (Rome, Italy), who developed SA-VAP between 20 March 2020 and 30 October 2020 (thereafter referred to as cases). After 1:2 matching based on the simplified acute physiology score II (SAPS II) and the sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score, cases were compared with SA-VAP patients without COVID-19 (controls). Clinical, microbiological, and lung microbiota data were analyzed. RESULTS: We studied two groups of patients (40 COVID-19 and 80 non-COVID-19). COVID-19 patients had a higher rate of late-onset (87.5% versus 63.8%; p = 0.01), methicillin-resistant (65.0% vs 27.5%; p < 0.01) or bacteremic (47.5% vs 6.3%; p < 0.01) infections compared with non-COVID-19 patients. No statistically significant differences between the patient groups were observed in ICU mortality (p = 0.12), clinical cure (p = 0.20) and microbiological eradication (p = 0.31). On multivariable logistic regression analysis, SAPS II and initial inappropriate antimicrobial therapy were independently associated with ICU mortality. Then, lung microbiota characterization in 10 COVID-19 and 16 non-COVID-19 patients revealed that the overall microbial community composition was significantly different between the patient groups (unweighted UniFrac distance, R2 0.15349; p < 0.01). Species diversity was lower in COVID-19 than in non COVID-19 patients (94.4 ± 44.9 vs 152.5 ± 41.8; p < 0.01). Interestingly, we found that S. aureus (log2 fold change, 29.5), Streptococcus anginosus subspecies anginosus (log2 fold change, 24.9), and Olsenella (log2 fold change, 25.7) were significantly enriched in the COVID-19 group compared to the non-COVID-19 group of SA-VAP patients. CONCLUSIONS: In our study population, COVID-19 seemed to significantly affect microbiological and clinical features of SA-VAP as well as to be associated with a peculiar lung microbiota composition.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated/microbiology , Staphylococcal Infections/etiology , Staphylococcus aureus/isolation & purification , Aged , Anti-Bacterial Agents/therapeutic use , Bronchoalveolar Lavage Fluid/microbiology , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Hospital Mortality , Hospitalization , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Italy , Logistic Models , Lung/microbiology , Male , Middle Aged , Organ Dysfunction Scores , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated/drug therapy , Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated/etiology , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial , Staphylococcal Infections/drug therapy
7.
JAMA ; 325(17): 1731-1743, 2021 05 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1241490

ABSTRACT

Importance: High-flow nasal oxygen is recommended as initial treatment for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and is widely applied in patients with COVID-19. Objective: To assess whether helmet noninvasive ventilation can increase the days free of respiratory support in patients with COVID-19 compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial in 4 intensive care units (ICUs) in Italy between October and December 2020, end of follow-up February 11, 2021, including 109 patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure (ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ≤200). Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive continuous treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation (positive end-expiratory pressure, 10-12 cm H2O; pressure support, 10-12 cm H2O) for at least 48 hours eventually followed by high-flow nasal oxygen (n = 54) or high-flow oxygen alone (60 L/min) (n = 55). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days after enrollment. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who required endotracheal intubation within 28 days from study enrollment, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 28, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 60, in-ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, 60-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay. Results: Among 110 patients who were randomized, 109 (99%) completed the trial (median age, 65 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 55-70]; 21 women [19%]). The median days free of respiratory support within 28 days after randomization were 20 (IQR, 0-25) in the helmet group and 18 (IQR, 0-22) in the high-flow nasal oxygen group, a difference that was not statistically significant (mean difference, 2 days [95% CI, -2 to 6]; P = .26). Of 9 prespecified secondary outcomes reported, 7 showed no significant difference. The rate of endotracheal intubation was significantly lower in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (30% vs 51%; difference, -21% [95% CI, -38% to -3%]; P = .03). The median number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation within 28 days was significantly higher in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (28 [IQR, 13-28] vs 25 [IQR 4-28]; mean difference, 3 days [95% CI, 0-7]; P = .04). The rate of in-hospital mortality was 24% in the helmet group and 25% in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -17% to 15%]; P > .99). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemia, treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation, compared with high-flow nasal oxygen, resulted in no significant difference in the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days. Further research is warranted to determine effects on other outcomes, including the need for endotracheal intubation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04502576.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Noninvasive Ventilation/instrumentation , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Male , Middle Aged , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Treatment Failure
9.
Chest ; 159(4): 1426-1436, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-921554

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Sigh is a cyclic brief recruitment maneuver: previous physiologic studies showed that its use could be an interesting addition to pressure support ventilation to improve lung elastance, decrease regional heterogeneity, and increase release of surfactant. RESEARCH QUESTION: Is the clinical application of sigh during pressure support ventilation (PSV) feasible? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a multicenter noninferiority randomized clinical trial on adult intubated patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure or ARDS undergoing PSV. Patients were randomized to the no-sigh group and treated by PSV alone, or to the sigh group, treated by PSV plus sigh (increase in airway pressure to 30 cm H2O for 3 s once per minute) until day 28 or death or successful spontaneous breathing trial. The primary end point of the study was feasibility, assessed as noninferiority (5% tolerance) in the proportion of patients failing assisted ventilation. Secondary outcomes included safety, physiologic parameters in the first week from randomization, 28-day mortality, and ventilator-free days. RESULTS: Two-hundred and fifty-eight patients (31% women; median age, 65 [54-75] years) were enrolled. In the sigh group, 23% of patients failed to remain on assisted ventilation vs 30% in the no-sigh group (absolute difference, -7%; 95% CI, -18% to 4%; P = .015 for noninferiority). Adverse events occurred in 12% vs 13% in the sigh vs no-sigh group (P = .852). Oxygenation was improved whereas tidal volume, respiratory rate, and corrected minute ventilation were lower over the first 7 days from randomization in the sigh vs no-sigh group. There was no significant difference in terms of mortality (16% vs 21%; P = .337) and ventilator-free days (22 [7-26] vs 22 [3-25] days; P = .300) for the sigh vs no-sigh group. INTERPRETATION: Among hypoxemic intubated ICU patients, application of sigh was feasible and without increased risk. TRIAL REGISTRY: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT03201263; URL: www.clinicaltrials.gov.


Subject(s)
Positive-Pressure Respiration , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Aged , Female , Humans , Intubation, Intratracheal , Male , Middle Aged , Pilot Projects , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/physiopathology , Respiratory Insufficiency/physiopathology , Respiratory Mechanics
10.
Crit Care ; 25(1): 128, 2021 04 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1169981

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Limited data are available on the use of prone position in intubated, invasively ventilated patients with Coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19). Aim of this study is to investigate the use and effect of prone position in this population during the first 2020 pandemic wave. METHODS: Retrospective, multicentre, national cohort study conducted between February 24 and June 14, 2020, in 24 Italian Intensive Care Units (ICU) on adult patients needing invasive mechanical ventilation for respiratory failure caused by COVID-19. Clinical data were collected on the day of ICU admission. Information regarding the use of prone position was collected daily. Follow-up for patient outcomes was performed on July 15, 2020. The respiratory effects of the first prone position were studied in a subset of 78 patients. Patients were classified as Oxygen Responders if the PaO2/FiO2 ratio increased ≥ 20 mmHg during prone position and as Carbon Dioxide Responders if the ventilatory ratio was reduced during prone position. RESULTS: Of 1057 included patients, mild, moderate and severe ARDS was present in 15, 50 and 35% of patients, respectively, and had a resulting mortality of 25, 33 and 41%. Prone position was applied in 61% of the patients. Patients placed prone had a more severe disease and died significantly more (45% vs. 33%, p < 0.001). Overall, prone position induced a significant increase in PaO2/FiO2 ratio, while no change in respiratory system compliance or ventilatory ratio was observed. Seventy-eight % of the subset of 78 patients were Oxygen Responders. Non-Responders had a more severe respiratory failure and died more often in the ICU (65% vs. 38%, p = 0.047). Forty-seven % of patients were defined as Carbon Dioxide Responders. These patients were older and had more comorbidities; however, no difference in terms of ICU mortality was observed (51% vs. 37%, p = 0.189 for Carbon Dioxide Responders and Non-Responders, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: During the COVID-19 pandemic, prone position has been widely adopted to treat mechanically ventilated patients with respiratory failure. The majority of patients improved their oxygenation during prone position, most likely due to a better ventilation perfusion matching. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov number: NCT04388670.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/therapy , Critical Care/standards , Intubation/standards , Patient Positioning/standards , Prone Position , Respiration, Artificial/standards , Supine Position , Aged , Cohort Studies , Female , Humans , Italy , Male , Middle Aged , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Retrospective Studies
11.
JAMA ; 325(17): 1731-1743, 2021 05 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1148761

ABSTRACT

Importance: High-flow nasal oxygen is recommended as initial treatment for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and is widely applied in patients with COVID-19. Objective: To assess whether helmet noninvasive ventilation can increase the days free of respiratory support in patients with COVID-19 compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial in 4 intensive care units (ICUs) in Italy between October and December 2020, end of follow-up February 11, 2021, including 109 patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure (ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ≤200). Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive continuous treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation (positive end-expiratory pressure, 10-12 cm H2O; pressure support, 10-12 cm H2O) for at least 48 hours eventually followed by high-flow nasal oxygen (n = 54) or high-flow oxygen alone (60 L/min) (n = 55). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days after enrollment. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who required endotracheal intubation within 28 days from study enrollment, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 28, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 60, in-ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, 60-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay. Results: Among 110 patients who were randomized, 109 (99%) completed the trial (median age, 65 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 55-70]; 21 women [19%]). The median days free of respiratory support within 28 days after randomization were 20 (IQR, 0-25) in the helmet group and 18 (IQR, 0-22) in the high-flow nasal oxygen group, a difference that was not statistically significant (mean difference, 2 days [95% CI, -2 to 6]; P = .26). Of 9 prespecified secondary outcomes reported, 7 showed no significant difference. The rate of endotracheal intubation was significantly lower in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (30% vs 51%; difference, -21% [95% CI, -38% to -3%]; P = .03). The median number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation within 28 days was significantly higher in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (28 [IQR, 13-28] vs 25 [IQR 4-28]; mean difference, 3 days [95% CI, 0-7]; P = .04). The rate of in-hospital mortality was 24% in the helmet group and 25% in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -17% to 15%]; P > .99). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemia, treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation, compared with high-flow nasal oxygen, resulted in no significant difference in the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days. Further research is warranted to determine effects on other outcomes, including the need for endotracheal intubation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04502576.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/complications , Intubation, Intratracheal/statistics & numerical data , Noninvasive Ventilation/instrumentation , Oxygen Inhalation Therapy/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , COVID-19/therapy , Female , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Male , Middle Aged , Noninvasive Ventilation/methods , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Treatment Failure
13.
Respir Care ; 66(5): 705-714, 2021 05.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1115489

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of noninvasive oxygenation strategies (NIOS) in treating COVID-19 disease is unknown. We conducted a prospective observational study to assess the rate of NIOS failure in subjects treated in the ICU for hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19. METHODS: Patients receiving first-line treatment NIOS for hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 in the ICU of a university hospital were included in this study; laboratory data were collected upon arrival, and 28-d outcome was recorded. After propensity score matching based on Simplified Acute Physiology (SAPS) II score, age, [Formula: see text] and [Formula: see text] at arrival, the NIOS failure rate in subjects with COVID-19 was compared to a previously published cohort who received NIOS during hypoxemic respiratory failure due to other causes. RESULTS: A total of 85 subjects received first-line treatment with NIOS. The most frequently used methods were helmet noninvasive ventilation and high-flow nasal cannula; of these, 52 subjects (61%) required endotracheal intubation. Independent factors associated with NIOS failure were SAPS II score (P = .009) and serum lactate dehydrogenase at enrollment (P = .02); the combination of SAPS II score ≥ 33 with serum lactate dehydrogenase ≥ 405 units/L at ICU admission had 91% specificity in predicting the need for endotracheal intubation. In the propensity-matched cohorts (54 pairs), subjects with COVID-19 showed higher risk of NIOS failure than those with other causes of hypoxemic respiratory failure (59% vs 35%, P = .02), with an adjusted hazard ratio of 2 (95% CI 1.1-3.6, P = .01). CONCLUSIONS: As compared to hypoxemic respiratory failure due to other etiologies, subjects with COVID-19 who were treated with NIOS in the ICU were burdened by a 2-fold higher risk of failure. Subjects with a SAPS II score ≥ 33 and serum lactate dehydrogenase ≥ 405 units/L represent the population with the greatest risk.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Noninvasive Ventilation , Respiratory Insufficiency , Critical Illness , Humans , Hypoxia/etiology , Hypoxia/therapy , Respiratory Insufficiency/etiology , Respiratory Insufficiency/therapy , SARS-CoV-2
14.
Crit Care ; 24(1): 529, 2020 08 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-733031

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Whether respiratory physiology of COVID-19-induced respiratory failure is different from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) of other etiologies is unclear. We conducted a single-center study to describe respiratory mechanics and response to positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in COVID-19 ARDS and to compare COVID-19 patients to matched-control subjects with ARDS from other causes. METHODS: Thirty consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to an intensive care unit in Rome, Italy, and fulfilling moderate-to-severe ARDS criteria were enrolled within 24 h from endotracheal intubation. Gas exchange, respiratory mechanics, and ventilatory ratio were measured at PEEP of 15 and 5 cmH2O. A single-breath derecruitment maneuver was performed to assess recruitability. After 1:1 matching based on PaO2/FiO2, FiO2, PEEP, and tidal volume, COVID-19 patients were compared to subjects affected by ARDS of other etiologies who underwent the same procedures in a previous study. RESULTS: Thirty COVID-19 patients were successfully matched with 30 ARDS from other etiologies. At low PEEP, median [25th-75th percentiles] PaO2/FiO2 in the two groups was 119 mmHg [101-142] and 116 mmHg [87-154]. Average compliance (41 ml/cmH2O [32-52] vs. 36 ml/cmH2O [27-42], p = 0.045) and ventilatory ratio (2.1 [1.7-2.3] vs. 1.6 [1.4-2.1], p = 0.032) were slightly higher in COVID-19 patients. Inter-individual variability (ratio of standard deviation to mean) of compliance was 36% in COVID-19 patients and 31% in other ARDS. In COVID-19 patients, PaO2/FiO2 was linearly correlated with respiratory system compliance (r = 0.52 p = 0.003). High PEEP improved PaO2/FiO2 in both cohorts, but more remarkably in COVID-19 patients (p = 0.005). Recruitability was not different between cohorts (p = 0.39) and was highly inter-individually variable (72% in COVID-19 patients and 64% in ARDS from other causes). In COVID-19 patients, recruitability was independent from oxygenation and respiratory mechanics changes due to PEEP. CONCLUSIONS: Early after establishment of mechanical ventilation, COVID-19 patients follow ARDS physiology, with compliance reduction related to the degree of hypoxemia, and inter-individually variable respiratory mechanics and recruitability. Physiological differences between ARDS from COVID-19 and other causes appear small.


Subject(s)
Coronavirus Infections/physiopathology , Pneumonia, Viral/physiopathology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/physiopathology , Aged , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/therapy , Female , Humans , Intensive Care Units , Italy , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/therapy , Positive-Pressure Respiration , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Respiratory Function Tests , Respiratory Mechanics/physiology , SARS-CoV-2
15.
Lancet Respir Med ; 8(12): 1201-1208, 2020 12.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-731950

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Patients with COVID-19 can develop acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which is associated with high mortality. The aim of this study was to examine the functional and morphological features of COVID-19-associated ARDS and to compare these with the characteristics of ARDS unrelated to COVID-19. METHODS: This prospective observational study was done at seven hospitals in Italy. We enrolled consecutive, mechanically ventilated patients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 and who met Berlin criteria for ARDS, who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) between March 9 and March 22, 2020. All patients were sedated, paralysed, and ventilated in volume-control mode with standard ICU ventilators. Static respiratory system compliance, the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fractional concentration of oxygen in inspired air, ventilatory ratio (a surrogate of dead space), and D-dimer concentrations were measured within 24 h of ICU admission. Lung CT scans and CT angiograms were done when clinically indicated. A dataset for ARDS unrelated to COVID-19 was created from previous ARDS studies. Survival to day 28 was assessed. FINDINGS: Between March 9 and March 22, 2020, 301 patients with COVID-19 met the Berlin criteria for ARDS at participating hospitals. Median static compliance was 41 mL/cm H2O (33-52), which was 28% higher than in the cohort of patients with ARDS unrelated to COVID-19 (32 mL/cm H2O [25-43]; p<0·0001). 17 (6%) of 297 patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS had compliances greater than the 95th percentile of the classical ARDS cohort. Total lung weight did not differ between the two cohorts. CT pulmonary angiograms (obtained in 23 [8%] patients with COVID-19-related ARDS) showed that 15 (94%) of 16 patients with D-dimer concentrations greater than the median had bilateral areas of hypoperfusion, consistent with thromboembolic disease. Patients with D-dimer concentrations equal to or less than the median had ventilatory ratios lower than those of patients with D-dimer concentrations greater than the median (1·66 [1·32-1·95] vs 1·90 [1·50-2·33]; p=0·0001). Patients with static compliance equal to or less than the median and D-dimer concentrations greater than the median had markedly increased 28-day mortality compared with other patient subgroups (40 [56%] of 71 with high D-dimers and low compliance vs 18 [27%] of 67 with low D-dimers and high compliance, 13 [22%] of 60 with low D-dimers and low compliance, and 22 [35%] of 63 with high D-dimers and high compliance, all p=0·0001). INTERPRETATION: Patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS have a form of injury that, in many aspects, is similar to that of those with ARDS unrelated to COVID-19. Notably, patients with COVID-19-related ARDS who have a reduction in respiratory system compliance together with increased D-dimer concentrations have high mortality rates. FUNDING: None.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/physiopathology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/physiopathology , Aged , COVID-19/mortality , Computed Tomography Angiography , Female , Fibrin Fibrinogen Degradation Products/metabolism , Humans , Lung/diagnostic imaging , Lung/pathology , Male , Middle Aged , Pandemics , Prospective Studies , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/mortality , SARS-CoV-2
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...