Hourly Analysis of Mechanical Ventilation Parameters in Critically Ill Adult Covid-19 Patients: Association with Mortality.

Objective: There exists controversy about the pathophysiology and lung mechanics of COVID-19 associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), because some report severe hypoxemia with preserved respiratory system mechanics, contrasting with "classic" ARDS. We performed a detailed hourly analysis of the characteristics and time course of lung mechanics and biochemical analysis of patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) for COVID-19-associated ARDS, comparing survivors and non-survivors. Methods: Retrospective analysis of the data stored in the ICU information system of patients admitted in our hospital ICU that required IMV due to confirmed SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia between March 5th and April 30th, 2020. We compare respiratory system mechanics and gas exchange during the first ten days of IMV, discriminating volume and pressure controlled modes, between ICU survivors and non-survivors. Results: 140 patients were included, analyzing 11 138 respiratory mechanics recordings. Global mortality was 38.6%. Multivariate analysis showed that age (OR 1.092, 95% (CI 1.014-1.176)) and need of renal replacement therapies (OR 10.15, (95% CI 1.58-65.11)) were associated with higher mortality. Previous use of Angiotensin Converting Enzyme inhibitor (ACEI)/angiotensin-receptor blockers (ARBs) also seemed to show an increased mortality (OR 4.612, (95% CI 1.19-17.84)) although this significance was lost when stratifying by age. Respiratory variables start to diverge significantly between survivors and non-survivors after the 96 to 120 hours (hs) from mechanical ventilation initiation, particularly respiratory system compliance. In non survivors, mechanical power at 24 and 96 hs was higher regardless ventilatory mode. Conclusions: In patients admitted for SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and requiring mechanical ventilation, non survivors have different respiratory system mechanics than survivors in the first 10 days of ICU admission. We propose a checkpoint at 96-120 hs to assess patients improvement or worsening in order to consider escalating to extracorporeal therapies.

Computed tomography assessment of PEEP-induced alveolar recruitment in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of data concerning the optimal ventilator management in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia; particularly, the optimal levels of positive-end expiratory pressure (PEEP) are unknown. We aimed to investigate the effects of two levels of PEEP on alveolar recruitment in critically ill patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: A single-center cohort study was conducted in a 39-bed intensive care unit at a university-affiliated hospital in Genoa, Italy. Chest computed tomography (CT) was performed to quantify aeration at 8 and 16 cmH2O PEEP. The primary endpoint was the amount of alveolar recruitment, defined as the change in the non-aerated compartment at the two PEEP levels on CT scan. RESULTS: Forty-two patients were included in this analysis. Alveolar recruitment was median [interquartile range] 2.7 [0.7-4.5] % of lung weight and was not associated with excess lung weight, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, respiratory system compliance, inflammatory and thrombophilia markers. Patients in the upper quartile of recruitment (recruiters), compared to non-recruiters, had comparable clinical characteristics, lung weight and gas volume. Alveolar recruitment was not different in patients with lower versus higher respiratory system compliance. In a subgroup of 20 patients with available gas exchange data, increasing PEEP decreased respiratory system compliance (median difference, MD - 9 ml/cmH2O, 95% CI from - 12 to - 6 ml/cmH2O, p < 0.001) and the ventilatory ratio (MD - 0.1, 95% CI from - 0.3 to - 0.1, p = 0.003), increased PaO2 with FiO2 = 0.5 (MD 24 mmHg, 95% CI from 12 to 51 mmHg, p < 0.001), but did not change PaO2 with FiO2 = 1.0 (MD 7 mmHg, 95% CI from - 12 to 49 mmHg, p = 0.313). Moreover, alveolar recruitment was not correlated with improvement of oxygenation or venous admixture. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, higher PEEP resulted in limited alveolar recruitment. These findings suggest limiting PEEP strictly to the values necessary to maintain oxygenation, thus avoiding the use of higher PEEP levels.

Physiological and quantitative CT-scan characterization of COVID-19 and typical ARDS: a matched cohort study.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether COVID-19-ARDS differs from all-cause ARDS. METHODS: Thirty-two consecutive, mechanically ventilated COVID-19-ARDS patients were compared to two historical ARDS sub-populations 1:1 matched for PaO2/FiO2 or for compliance of the respiratory system. Gas exchange, hemodynamics and respiratory mechanics were recorded at 5 and 15 cmH2O PEEP. CT scan variables were measured at 5 cmH2O PEEP. RESULTS: Anthropometric characteristics were similar in COVID-19-ARDS, PaO2/FiO2-matched-ARDS and Compliance-matched-ARDS. The PaO2/FiO2-matched-ARDS and COVID-19-ARDS populations (both with PaO2/FiO2 106 ± 59 mmHg) had different respiratory system compliances (Crs) (39 ± 11 vs 49.9 ± 15.4 ml/cmH2O, p = 0.03). The Compliance-matched-ARDS and COVID-19-ARDS had similar Crs (50.1 ± 15.7 and 49.9 ± 15.4 ml/cmH2O, respectively) but significantly lower PaO2/FiO2 for the same Crs (160 ± 62 vs 106.5 ± 59.6 mmHg, p < 0.001). The three populations had similar lung weights but COVID-19-ARDS had significantly higher lung gas volume (PaO2/FiO2-matched-ARDS 930 ± 644 ml, COVID-19-ARDS 1670 ± 791 ml and Compliance-matched-ARDS 1301 ± 627 ml, p < 0.05). The venous admixture was significantly related to the non-aerated tissue in PaO2/FiO2-matched-ARDS and Compliance-matched-ARDS (p < 0.001) but unrelated in COVID-19-ARDS (p = 0.75), suggesting that hypoxemia was not only due to the extent of non-aerated tissue. Increasing PEEP from 5 to 15 cmH2O improved oxygenation in all groups. However, while lung mechanics and dead space improved in PaO2/FiO2-matched-ARDS, suggesting recruitment as primary mechanism, they remained unmodified or worsened in COVID-19-ARDS and Compliance-matched-ARDS, suggesting lower recruitment potential and/or blood flow redistribution. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19-ARDS is a subset of ARDS characterized overall by higher compliance and lung gas volume for a given PaO2/FiO2, at least when considered within the timeframe of our study.