Adherence to protective mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: Comparison between two prospective cohorts.

OBJECTIVE: To compare adherence to protective mechanical ventilation (MV) parameters in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by COVID-19 with patients with ARDS from other etiologies. DESIGN: Multiple prospective cohort study. SETTING: Two Brazilian cohorts of ARDS patients were evaluated. One with COVID-19 patients admitted to two Brazilian intensive care units (ICUs) in 2020 and 2021 (C-ARDS, n=282), the other with ARDS-patients from other etiologies admitted to 37 Brazilian ICUs in 2016 (NC-ARDS, n=120). PATIENTS: ARDS patients under MV. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN VARIABLES OF INTEREST: Adherence to protective MV (tidal volume ≤8mL/kg PBW; plateau pressure ≤30cmH2O; and driving pressure ≤15cmH2O), adherence to each individual component of the protective MV, and the association between protective MV and mortality. RESULTS: Adherence to protective MV was higher in C-ARDS than in NC-ARDS patients (65.8% vs. 50.0%, p=0.005), mainly due to a higher adherence to driving pressure ≤15cmH2O (75.0% vs. 62.4%, p=0.02). Multivariable logistic regression showed that the C-ARDS cohort was independently associated with adherence to protective MV. Among the components of the protective MV, only limiting driving pressure was independently associated with lower ICU mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Higher adherence to protective MV in patients with C-ARDS was secondary to higher adherence to limiting driving pressure. Additionally, lower driving pressure was independently associated with lower ICU mortality, which suggests that limiting exposure to driving pressure may improve survival in these patients.

Clinical characteristics of pediatric patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: There are only a few reports of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in patients with SARS-CoV-2 in pediatrics. This study aimed to describe the characteristics of critically ill pediatric patients with COVID-19, the frequency of ARDS, ventilatory mechanics and results of prone position. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective, observational study of patients admitted to the pediatric intensive care unit (PICU) between April 1 to September 30, 2020. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were admitted to pediatric intensive care unit, 31.7% were SARS-CoV-2 positive. 13 presented ARDS, 11 required invasive mechanical ventilation, and seven were pronated as an oxygenation strategy. All patients classified as severe ARDS were pronated. Obesity was the most important comorbidity. The complications associated with ARDS were multisystemic inflammatory syndrome (8 vs. 4; p < 0.05) and acute kidney injury (8 vs. 3; p < 0.05). Procalcitonin was higher in patients with ARDS, as were the days of stay in PICU (p < 0.05). The success of the pronation maneuver was achieved 8 hours later , with the following results: arterial oxygen partial pressure to fractional inspired oxygen ratio 128 vs. 204, oxygenation index 8.9 vs. 5.9, static lung compliance 0.54 vs. 0.70 ml/cmH2O/kg, plateau pressure 24 vs. 19 cmH2O (p < 0.05). The use of narcotics was higher in the group with ARDS plus pronation 124 vs. 27 hours in the non-pronated (p < 0.01). Mortality associated with SARS-CoV-2 was 5.8%. CONCLUSIONS: ARDS was presented in 38.2% of the children admitted to PICU and was more frequent in obese patients. Pronation, performed in severe cases, improved oxygenation and lung mechanics indexes. No patient died of ARDS.

INTRODUCCIÓN: Existen pocos reportes de síndrome de dificultad respiratoria aguda (SDRA) con COVID-19 en pacientes pediátricos. El objetivo de este estudio fue describir las características de los pacientes pediátricos críticamente enfermos con COVID-19, la frecuencia del SDRA, la mecánica ventilatoria y los resultados de la posición prona. MÉTODOS: Se llevó a cabo un estudio retrospectivo y observacional de los pacientes ingresados del 1 de abril al 30 de septiembre de 2020. RESULTADOS: Ingresaron 34 pacientes a la unidad de terapia intensiva pediátrica (UTIP) con prueba positiva para SARS-CoV-2. De ellos, 13 presentaron SDRA, 11 requirieron ventilación mecánica invasiva y siete fueron pronados como estrategia de oxigenación. Todos los pacientes clasificados como SDRA graves fueron pronados. La obesidad fue la comorbilidad más importante. Las complicaciones asociadas con SDRA fueron el síndrome inflamatorio multisistémico (p < 0.05) y la lesión renal aguda (p < 0.05). La procalcitonina fue mayor en los pacientes con SDRA, al igual que los días de estancia en la UTIP (p < 0.05). El éxito de la maniobra de pronación se alcanzó 8 horas después.Los resultados observados fueron los siguientes relación presión arterial de oxígeno/fracción inspirada de oxígeno 128 vs. 204, índice de oxigenación 8.9 vs. 5.9, distensibilidad pulmonar estática 0.54 vs. 0.70 ml/cmH2O/kg, y presión meseta 24 vs. 19 cmH2O (p < 0.05). El uso de narcóticos fue mayor en el grupo de SDRA más pronación que en los no pronados (124 vs. 27 h; p < 0.01). La mortalidad asociada con SARS-CoV-2 fue del 5.8%. CONCLUSIONES: El SDRA se presentó en el 38.2% de los niños admitidos a UTIP, y con mayor frecuencia en los pacientes con obesidad. La maniobra de pronación aplicada en los casos severos, mejoró la oxigenación de la mécanica pulmonar. Ninguno de los pacientes falleció por SDRA.

Awake pronation with helmet continuous positive airway pressure for COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients outside the ICU: A case series.

OBJECTIVE: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) is an important therapeutic tool in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) since it improves oxygenation, reduces respiratory rate and can prevent intubation and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. CPAP during pronation has seldom been described and never during sedation. DESIGN: Case series. SETTING: High dependency unit of San Carlo University Hospital (Potenza, Italy). PATIENTS: Eleven consecutive patients with COVID-19 ARDS. INTERVENTION: Helmet CPAP in prone position after failing a CPAP trial in the supine position. MAIN VARIABLE OF INTEREST: Data collection at baseline and then after 24, 48 and 72h of pronation. We measured PaO2/FIO2, pH, lactate, PaCO2, SpO2, respiratory rate and the status of the patients at 28-day follow up. RESULTS: Patients were treated with helmet CPAP for a mean±SD of 7±2.7 days. Prone positioning was feasible in all patients, but in 7 of them dexmedetomidine improved comfort. PaO2/FIO2 improved from 107.5±20.8 before starting pronation to 244.4±106.2 after 72h (p<.001). We also observed a significantly increase in Sp02 from 90.6±2.3 to 96±3.1 (p<.001) and a decrease in respiratory rate from 27.6±4.3 to 20.1±4.7 (p=.004). No difference was observed in PaCO2 or pH. At 28 days two patients died after ICU admission, one was discharged in the main ward after ICU admission and eight were discharged home after being successfully managed outside the ICU. CONCLUSIONS: Helmet CPAP during pronation was feasible and safe in COVID-19 ARDS managed outside the ICU and sedation with dexmedetomidine safely improved comfort. We recorded an increase in PaO2/FIO2, SpO2 and a reduction in respiratory rate.