Barotrauma in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: retrospective analysis of the COVADIS prospective multicenter observational database.

BACKGROUND: Despite evidence suggesting a higher risk of barotrauma during COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) compared to ARDS due to other causes, data are limited about possible associations with patient characteristics, ventilation strategy, and survival. METHODS: This prospective observational multicenter study included consecutive patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 ARDS requiring invasive mechanical ventilation and managed at any of 12 centers in France and Belgium between March and December 2020. The primary objective was to determine whether barotrauma was associated with ICU mortality (censored on day 90), and the secondary objective was to identify factors associated with barotrauma. RESULTS: Of 586 patients, 48 (8.2%) experienced barotrauma, including 35 with pneumothorax, 23 with pneumomediastinum, 1 with pneumoperitoneum, and 6 with subcutaneous emphysema. Median time from mechanical ventilation initiation to barotrauma detection was 3 [0-17] days. All patients received protective ventilation and nearly half (23/48) were in volume-controlled mode. Barotrauma was associated with higher hospital mortality (P < 0.001) even after adjustment on age, sex, comorbidities, PaO2/FiO2 at intubation, plateau pressure at intubation, and center (P < 0.05). The group with barotrauma had a lower mean body mass index (28.6 ± 5.8 vs. 30.3 ± 5.9, P = 0.03) and a higher proportion of patients given corticosteroids (87.5% vs. 63.4%, P = 0.001). CONCLUSION: Barotrauma during mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 ARDS was associated with higher hospital mortality.

High incidence of barotrauma in patients admitted with COVID-19 to ICU and associated mortality in rural Appalachia: An observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the incidence of barotrauma and its impact on mortality in COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU. DESIGN: Single-center retrospective study of consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to a rural tertiary-care ICU. The primary outcomes were incidence of barotrauma in COVID-19 patients and all-cause 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were the length of stay (LOS) in the hospital and ICU. Kaplan-Meier method and log-rank test were used in the survival data analysis. SETTING: Medical ICU, West Virginia University Hospital (WVUH), USA. PATIENTS: All adult patients were admitted to the ICU for acute hypoxic respiratory failure due to coronavirus disease 2019 between September 1, 2020, and December 31, 2020. Historical controls were ARDS patients admitted pre-COVID. INTERVENTION: Not applicable. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-five consecutive patients with COVID-19 were admitted to the ICU during the defined period, compared to 39 historical non-COVID controls. The overall incidence of barotrauma in COVID-19 patients was 37/165 (22.4%) compared to 4/39 (10.3%) in the control group. Patients with COVID-19 and barotrauma had a significantly worse survival (HR = 1.56, p = 0.047) compared to controls. In those requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, the COVID group also had significantly higher rates of barotrauma (OR 3.1, p = 0.03) and worse all-cause mortality (OR 2.21, p = 0.018). COVID-19 with barotrauma had significantly higher LOS in the ICU and the hospital. CONCLUSIONS: Our data on critically ill COVID-19 patients admitted to the ICU shows a high incidence of barotrauma and mortality compared to the controls. Additionally, we report a high incidence of barotrauma even in non-ventilated ICU patients.

The Macklin effect closely correlates with pneumomediastinum in acutely ill intubated patients with COVID-19 infection.

PURPOSE: Patients with COVID-19 infection are frequently found to have pulmonary barotrauma. Recent work has identified the Macklin effect as a radiographic sign that often occurs in patients with COVID-19 and may correlate with barotrauma. METHODS: We evaluated chest CT scans in COVID-19 positive mechanically ventilated patients for the Macklin effect and any type of pulmonary barotrauma. Patient charts were reviewed to identify demographic and clinical characteristics. RESULTS: The Macklin effect on chest CT scan was identified in a total of 10/75 (13.3%) COVID-19 positive mechanically ventilated patients; 9 developed barotrauma. Patients with the Macklin effect on chest CT scan had a 90% rate of pneumomediastinum (p < 0.001) and a trend toward a higher rate of pneumothorax (60%, p = 0.09). Pneumothorax was most frequently omolateral to the site of the Macklin effect (83.3%). CONCLUSION: The Macklin effect may be a strong radiographic biomarker for pulmonary barotrauma, most strongly correlating with pneumomediastinum. Studies in ARDS patients without COVID-19 are needed to validate this sign in a broader population. If validated in a broad population, future critical care treatment algorithms may include the Macklin sign for clinical decision making and prognostication.

Clinical use of Macklin-like radiological sign (Macklin effect): A systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Recent studies suggested that Macklin sign is a predictor of barotrauma in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). We performed a systematic review to further characterize the clinical role of Macklin. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register and Embase were searched for studies reporting data on Macklin. Studies without data on chest CT, pediatric studies, non-human and cadaver studies, case reports and series including <5 patients were excluded. The primary objective was to assess the number of patients with Macklin sign and barotrauma. Secondary objectives were: occurrence of Macklin in different populations, clinical use of Macklin, prognostic impact of Macklin. RESULTS: Seven studies enrolling 979 patients were included. Macklin was present in 4-22% of COVID-19 patients. It was associated with barotrauma in 124/138 (89.8%) of cases. Macklin sign preceded barotrauma in 65/69 cases (94.2%) 3-8 days in advance. Four studies used Macklin as pathophysiological explanation for barotrauma, two studies as a predictor of barotrauma and one as a decision-making tool. Two studies suggested that Macklin is a strong predictor of barotrauma in ARDS patients and one study used Macklin sign to candidate high-risk ARDS patients to awake extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). A possible correlation between Macklin and worse prognosis was suggested in two studies on COVID-19 and blunt chest trauma. CONCLUSIONS: Increasing evidence suggests that Macklin sign anticipate barotrauma in patients with ARDS and there are initial reports on use of Macklin as a decision-making tool. Further studies investigating the role of Macklin sign in ARDS are justified.

Venovenous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation in Awake Non-Intubated Patients With COVID-19 ARDS at High Risk for Barotrauma.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of an awake venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) management strategy in preventing clinically relevant barotrauma in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) at high risk for pneumothorax (PNX)/pneumomediastinum (PMD), defined as the detection of the Macklin-like effect on chest computed tomography (CT) scan. DESIGN: A case series. SETTING: At the intensive care unit of a tertiary-care institution. PARTICIPANTS: Seven patients with COVID-19-associated severe ARDS and Macklin-like radiologic sign on baseline chest CT. INTERVENTIONS: Primary VV-ECMO under spontaneous breathing instead of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). All patients received noninvasive ventilation or oxygen through a high-flow nasal cannula before and during ECMO support. The study authors collected data on cannulation strategy, clinical management, and outcome. Failure of awake VV-ECMO strategy was defined as the need for IMV due to worsening respiratory failure or delirium/agitation. The primary outcome was the development of PNX/PMD. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: No patient developed PNX/PMD. The awake VV-ECMO strategy failed in 1 patient (14.3%). Severe complications were observed in 4 (57.1%) patients and were noted as the following: intracranial bleeding in 1 patient (14.3%), septic shock in 2 patients (28.6%), and secondary pulmonary infections in 3 patients (42.8%). Two patients died (28.6%), whereas 5 were successfully weaned off VV-ECMO and were discharged home. CONCLUSIONS: VV-ECMO in awake and spontaneously breathing patients with severe COVID-19 ARDS may be a feasible and safe strategy to prevent the development of PNX/PMD in patients at high risk for this complication.

Incidence, clinical characteristics and outcome of barotrauma in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Barotrauma is rare in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome undergoing mechanical ventilation. Its incidence seems increased among critically ill COVID-19 patients. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the incidence, risk factors and clinical outcomes of barotrauma among critically ill COVID-19 patients. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: PubMed was searched from March 1st, 2020 to August 31st, 2021; case series and retrospective cohort studies concerning barotrauma in adult critically ill COVID-19 patients, either hospitalized in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) or invasively ventilated were included. Primary outcome was the incidence of barotrauma in COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 patients. Secondary outcomes were clinical characteristics, ventilator parameters, mortality and length of stay between patients with and without barotrauma. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We identified 21 studies (six case series, 15 retrospective cohorts). The overall incidence of barotrauma was 11 [95% CI: 8-14]% in critically ill COVID-19 patients, vs. 2 [1-3]% in non-COVID-19, P<0.001; the incidence in mechanically ventilated patients was 14 [11-17]% vs. 4 [2-5]% non-COVID-19 patients, P<0.001. There were no differences in demographic, clinical, ventilatory parameters between patients who did and did not develop barotrauma, while, on average, protective ventilation criteria were always respected. Among COVID-19 patients, those with barotrauma had a higher mortality (60 [55-66] vs. 48 [42-54]%, P<0.001) and a longer ICU length of stay (20 [14-26] vs. 13 [10,5-16] days, P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Barotrauma is a frequent complication in critically ill COVID-19 patients and is associated with a poor prognosis. Since lung protective ventilation was delivered, the ventilatory management might not be the sole factor in the development of barotrauma.

Barotrauma in critically ill COVID-19 patients: a retrospective case-control study.

BACKGROUND: There is increased incidence of barotrauma in COVID-19 patients, probably due to disease pathology, oxygen therapy and coughing. We aimed to retrospectively compare the characteristics, associations and outcomes of COVID-19 patients with and without barotrauma in the intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: All adults admitted between October 1st and December 31st 2020 in the ICUs of a COVID-19 hospital were retrospectively analysed for presence of a 'barotrauma event' (presence of at least one of pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, subcutaneous emphysema or bronchopleural fistula). A control group was formed by matching each case to a patient belonging to the same gender and age range from the remaining patients in the cohort, i.e., those without barotrauma. Demographic details, ICU stay details, details of oxygen therapy and ventilation, and outcomes were noted and compared. RESULTS: Of 827 patients, 30 patients (3.6%) developed barotrauma events. The typical patient was middle aged (median age 55.5 years) and male (73.3%). The mortality rate was significantly higher in the barotrauma group (83.3% vs. 43.3%, P < 0.001), and odds of survival decreased by 85% if barotrauma occurred (OR 0.15; 95% CI: 0.46-0.51). Patients who developed barotrauma spent a longer time on a high-flow nasal cannula (median 6.7 vs. 1.73 days, P = 0.04), and mechanical ventilation (median 9.54 vs. 0.867 days, P < 0.001), and had a longer ICU stay (median 15.5 vs. 9 days, P = 0.014). The most common event was pneumothorax (26/30). CONCLUSIONS: Barotrauma in the COVID-19 ICU is associated with prolonged ICU stay, higher odds of mortality and longer duration spent on mechanical ventilation and a high-flow nasal cannula. Key words: barotrauma, ICU, COVID-19, mortality, pneumothorax.

Barotrauma during non-invasive ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19: a balance between risks and benefits.

Ventilatory support is vital for the management of severe forms of COVID-19. Non-invasive ventilation is often used in patients who do not meet criteria for intubation or when invasive ventilation is not available, especially in a pandemic when resources are limited. Despite non-invasive ventilation providing effective respiratory support for some forms of acute respiratory failure, data about its effectiveness in patients with viral-related pneumonia are inconclusive. Acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 infection causes life-threatening respiratory failure, weakening the lung parenchyma and increasing the risk of barotrauma. Pulmonary barotrauma results from positive pressure ventilation leading to elevated transalveolar pressure, and in turn to alveolar rupture and leakage of air into the extra-alveolar tissue. This article reviews the literature regarding the use of non-invasive ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure associated with COVID-19 and other epidemic or pandemic viral infections and the related risk of barotrauma.

Outcomes of Barotrauma in Critically Ill COVID-19 Patients With Severe Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Pneumomediastinum and pneumothorax are complications which may be associated with barotrauma in mechanically ventilated patients. The current literature demonstrates unclear outcomes regarding barotrauma in critically ill patients with severe COVID-19. The purpose of this study was to examine the incidence of barotrauma in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia and its influence on survival. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed from March 18, 2020 to May 5, 2020, with follow-up through June 18, 2020, encompassing critically ill intubated patients admitted for COVID-19 pneumonia at an academic tertiary care hospital in Brooklyn, New York. Critically ill patients with pneumomediastinum, pneumothorax, or both (n = 75) were compared to those without evidence of barotrauma (n = 206). Clinical characteristics and short-term patient outcomes were analyzed. RESULTS: Barotrauma occurred in 75/281 (26.7%) of included patients. On multivariable analysis, factors associated with increased 30-day mortality were elevated age (HR 1.015 [95% CI 1.004-1.027], P = 0.006), barotrauma (1.417 [1.040-1.931], P = 0.027), and renal dysfunction (1.602 [1.055-2.432], P = 0.027). Protective factors were administration of remdesivir (0.479 [0.321-0.714], P < 0.001) and receipt of steroids (0.488 [0.370-0.643], P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Barotrauma occurred at high rates in intubated critically ill patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and was found to be an independent risk factor for 30-day mortality.

Serious complications in COVID-19 ARDS cases: pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, subcutaneous emphysema and haemothorax.

The novel coronavirus identified as severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 causes acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Our aim in this study is to assess the incidence of life-threatening complications like pneumothorax, haemothorax, pneumomediastinum and subcutaneous emphysema, probable risk factors and effect on mortality in coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) ARDS patients treated with mechanical ventilation (MV). Data from 96 adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit with COVID-19 ARDS diagnosis from 11 March to 31 July 2020 were retrospectively assessed. A total of 75 patients abiding by the study criteria were divided into two groups as the group developing ventilator-related barotrauma (BG) (N = 10) and the group not developing ventilator-related barotrauma (NBG) (N = 65). In 10 patients (13%), barotrauma findings occurred 22 ± 3.6 days after the onset of symptoms. The mortality rate was 40% in the BG-group, while it was 29% in the NBG-group with no statistical difference identified. The BG-group had longer intensive care admission duration, duration of time in prone position and total MV duration, with higher max positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) levels and lower min pO2/FiO2 levels. The peak lactate dehydrogenase levels in blood were higher by statistically significant level in the BG-group (P < 0.05). The contribution of MV to alveolar injury caused by infection in COVID-19 ARDS patients may cause more frequent barotrauma compared to classic ARDS and this situation significantly increases the MV and intensive care admission durations of patients. In terms of reducing mortality and morbidity in these patients, MV treatment should be carefully maintained within the framework of lung-protective strategies and the studies researching barotrauma pathophysiology should be increased.

Pulmonary Barotrauma in COVID-19 Patients With ARDS on Invasive and Non-Invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation.

BACKGROUND: We experienced a high incidence of pulmonary barotrauma among patients with coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) at our institution. In current study, we sought to evaluate the incidence, clinical outcomes, and characteristics of barotrauma among COVID-19 patients receiving invasive and non-invasive positive pressure ventilation. METHODOLOGY: This retrospective cohort study included adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 pneumonia and requiring oxygen support or positive airway pressure for ARDS who presented to our tertiary-care center from March through November, 2020. RESULTS: A total of 353 patients met our inclusion criteria, of which 232 patients who required heated high-flow nasal cannula, continuous or bilevel positive airway pressure were assigned to non-invasive group. The remaining 121 patients required invasive mechanical ventilation and were assigned to invasive group. Of the total 353 patients, 32 patients (65.6% males) with a mean age of 63 ± 11 years developed barotrauma in the form of subcutaneous emphysema, pneumothorax, or pneumomediastinum. The incidence of barotrauma was 4.74% (11/232) and 17.35% (21/121) in the non-invasive group and invasive group, respectively. The median length of hospital stay was 22 (15.7 -33.0) days with an overall mortality of 62.5% (n = 20). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with COVID-19 ARDS have a high incidence of barotrauma. Pulmonary barotrauma should be considered in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who exhibit worsening of their respiratory disease as it is likely associated with a high mortality risk. Utilizing lung-protective ventilation strategies may reduce the risk of barotrauma.

High Incidence of Barotrauma in Patients With Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019.

OBJECTIVE.: To report the high incidence of barotrauma in critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and to discuss its implications. DESIGN.: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING.: ICU of an academic county hospital in Los Angeles, CA admitted from March 15-June 20, 2020. PATIENTS.: 77 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. 75 patients met inclusion criteria. RESULTS.: 21% of patients with severe COVID-19 sustained barotrauma (33% of patients receiving IMV, 8% of patients receiving (NIV). There were no differences between the barotrauma and non-barotrauma groups regarding demographics, illness severity, or medications received, nor tidal volume or average/peak airway pressures in those receiving IMV. In the barotrauma group there was a greater proportion of patients receiving therapeutic anticoagulation (81% vs. 47%, p = 0.023) and ventilated using airway pressure release ventilation mode (13% vs. 0%, p = 0.043). Barotrauma was associated with increased likelihood of receiving a tracheostomy (OR 2.58 [0.23-4.9], p = 0.018]), longer median ICU length of stay (17 days vs. 7 days, p = 0.03), and longer median length of hospitalization (26 days vs. 14 days, p < 0.001). There was also a trend toward prolonged median duration of IMV (12.5 days vs 7 days, p = 0.13) and higher average mortality (56% vs 37%, p = 0.25). CONCLUSIONS.: Barotrauma is seen in 5-12% of patients with ARDS receiving IMV and is exceedingly rare in patients receiving NIV. We report a high incidence of barotrauma observed in critically ill patients with COVID-19 requiring either NIV or IMV. While there was a trend toward increased mortality in patients with barotrauma, this did not reach statistical significance. The increased incidence of barotrauma with COVID-19 may be a product of the pathophysiology of this disease state and a heightened inflammatory response causing rampant acute lung injury. Evidence-based medicine and lung-protective ventilation should remain the mainstay of treatment.

High-flow nasal cannulae for respiratory support in adult intensive care patients.

BACKGROUND: High-flow nasal cannulae (HFNC) deliver high flows of blended humidified air and oxygen via wide-bore nasal cannulae and may be useful in providing respiratory support for adults experiencing acute respiratory failure, or at risk of acute respiratory failure, in the intensive care unit (ICU). This is an update of an earlier version of the review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of HFNC compared to standard oxygen therapy, or non-invasive ventilation (NIV) or non-invasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV), for respiratory support in adults in the ICU. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and the Cochrane COVID-19 Register (17 April 2020), clinical trial registers (6 April 2020) and conducted forward and backward citation searches. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled studies (RCTs) with a parallel-group or cross-over design comparing HFNC use versus other types of non-invasive respiratory support (standard oxygen therapy via nasal cannulae or mask; or NIV or NIPPV which included continuous positive airway pressure and bilevel positive airway pressure) in adults admitted to the ICU. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included 31 studies (22 parallel-group and nine cross-over designs) with 5136 participants; this update included 20 new studies. Twenty-one studies compared HFNC with standard oxygen therapy, and 13 compared HFNC with NIV or NIPPV; three studies included both comparisons. We found 51 ongoing studies (estimated 12,807 participants), and 19 studies awaiting classification for which we could not ascertain study eligibility information. In 18 studies, treatment was initiated after extubation. In the remaining studies, participants were not previously mechanically ventilated. HFNC versus standard oxygen therapy HFNC may lead to less treatment failure as indicated by escalation to alternative types of oxygen therapy (risk ratio (RR) 0.62, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.45 to 0.86; 15 studies, 3044 participants; low-certainty evidence). HFNC probably makes little or no difference in mortality when compared with standard oxygen therapy (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.82 to 1.11; 11 studies, 2673 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). HFNC probably results in little or no difference to cases of pneumonia (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.09; 4 studies, 1057 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and we were uncertain of its effect on nasal mucosa or skin trauma (RR 3.66, 95% CI 0.43 to 31.48; 2 studies, 617 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found low-certainty evidence that HFNC may make little or no difference to the length of ICU stay according to the type of respiratory support used (MD 0.12 days, 95% CI -0.03 to 0.27; 7 studies, 1014 participants). We are uncertain whether HFNC made any difference to the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO2/FiO2) within 24 hours of treatment (MD 10.34 mmHg, 95% CI -17.31 to 38; 5 studies, 600 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether HFNC made any difference to short-term comfort (MD 0.31, 95% CI -0.60 to 1.22; 4 studies, 662 participants, very low-certainty evidence), or to long-term comfort (MD 0.59, 95% CI -2.29 to 3.47; 2 studies, 445 participants, very low-certainty evidence). HFNC versus NIV or NIPPV We found no evidence of a difference between groups in treatment failure when HFNC were used post-extubation or without prior use of mechanical ventilation (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.22; 5 studies, 1758 participants; low-certainty evidence), or in-hospital mortality (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.64 to 1.31; 5 studies, 1758 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are very uncertain about the effect of using HFNC on incidence of pneumonia (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.17 to 1.52; 3 studies, 1750 participants; very low-certainty evidence), and HFNC may result in little or no difference to barotrauma (RR 1.15, 95% CI 0.42 to 3.14; 1 study, 830 participants; low-certainty evidence). HFNC may make little or no difference to the length of ICU stay (MD -0.72 days, 95% CI -2.85 to 1.42; 2 studies, 246 participants; low-certainty evidence). The ratio of PaO2/FiO2 may be lower up to 24 hours with HFNC use (MD -58.10 mmHg, 95% CI -71.68 to -44.51; 3 studies, 1086 participants; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain whether HFNC improved short-term comfort when measured using comfort scores (MD 1.33, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.92; 2 studies, 258 participants) and responses to questionnaires (RR 1.30, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.53; 1 study, 168 participants); evidence for short-term comfort was very low certainty. No studies reported on nasal mucosa or skin trauma. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: HFNC may lead to less treatment failure when compared to standard oxygen therapy, but probably makes little or no difference to treatment failure when compared to NIV or NIPPV. For most other review outcomes, we found no evidence of a difference in effect. However, the evidence was often of low or very low certainty. We found a large number of ongoing studies; including these in future updates could increase the certainty or may alter the direction of these effects.

ANTECEDENTES: Las cánulas nasales de alto flujo (HFNC) administran flujos elevados de una mezcla humedecida de aire y oxígeno a través de cánulas nasales de gran calibre y pueden ser útiles para proporcionar asistencia respiratoria a los adultos que presentan insuficiencia respiratoria aguda, o que tienen riesgo de presentarla, en la unidad de cuidados intensivos (UCI). Esta es una actualización de una versión anterior de la revisión. OBJETIVOS: Evaluar la eficacia de las HFNC en comparación con la oxigenoterapia estándar, o la ventilación no invasiva (VNI) o la ventilación con presión positiva no invasiva (VPPNI), para la asistencia respiratoria de adultos en la UCI. MÉTODOS DE BÚSQUEDA: Se realizaron búsquedas en CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science y en el Registro Cochrane de covid­19 (17 de abril de 2020), registros de ensayos clínicos (6 de abril de 2020) y se realizaron búsquedas de citas prospectivas y retrospectivas. CRITERIOS DE SELECCIÓN: Se incluyeron los estudios controlados aleatorizados (ECA) con un diseño de grupos paralelos o cruzados que compararon el uso de HFNC versus otro tipo de asistencia respiratoria no invasiva (oxigenoterapia estándar a través de cánulas nasales o mascarilla; o VNI o VPPNI que incluía la presión positiva continua en las vías respiratorias y la presión positiva de dos niveles en las vías respiratorias) en adultos ingresados en la UCI. OBTENCIÓN Y ANÁLISIS DE LOS DATOS: Se utilizaron los procedimientos metodológicos estándar previstos por la Colaboración Cochrane. RESULTADOS PRINCIPALES: Se incluyeron 31 estudios (22 de grupos paralelos y nueve de diseño cruzado) con 5136 participantes; esta actualización incluyó 20 estudios nuevos. Veintiún estudios compararon la HFNC con la oxigenoterapia estándar, y 13 compararon la HFNC con la VNI o la VPPNI; tres estudios incluyeron ambas comparaciones. Se encontraron 51 estudios en curso (con una estimación de 12 807 participantes) y 19 estudios en espera de clasificación en los que no fue posible determinar la información de elegibilidad del estudio. En 18 estudios el tratamiento se inició después de la extubación. En el resto de los estudios, los participantes no habían recibido de forma previa ventilación mecánica. HFNC versus oxigenoterapia estándar La HFNC podría conducir a un menor fracaso del tratamiento, según lo indicado por el escalamiento a tipos alternativos de oxigenoterapia (razón de riesgos [RR] 0,62; intervalo de confianza [IC] del 95%: 0,45 a 0,86; 15 estudios, 3044 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). La HFNC probablemente da lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en la mortalidad cuando se compara con la oxigenoterapia estándar (RR 0,96; IC del 95%: 0,82 a 1,11; 11 estudios, 2673 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada). La HFNC probablemente da lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia con respecto a los casos de neumonía (RR 0,72; IC del 95%: 0,48 a 1,09; cuatro estudios, 1057 participantes; evidencia de certeza moderada), y no se sabe con certeza su efecto sobre la mucosa nasal ni el traumatismo cutáneo (RR 3,66; IC del 95%: 0,43 a 31,48; dos estudios, 617 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja). Se encontró evidencia de certeza baja de que la HFNC podría dar lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en la duración de la estancia en la UCI según el tipo de asistencia respiratoria utilizada (DM 0,12 días; IC del 95%: ­0,03 a 0,27; siete estudios, 1014 participantes). No se sabe con certeza si la HFNC dio lugar a alguna diferencia en el cociente entre la presión parcial de oxígeno arterial y la fracción de oxígeno inspirado (PaO2/FiO2) en las primeras 24 horas del tratamiento (DM 10,34 mmHg; IC del 95%: ­17,31 a 38; cinco estudios, 600 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja). No se sabe con certeza si la HFNC dio lugar a alguna diferencia en la comodidad a corto plazo (DM 0,31; IC del 95%: ­0,60 a 1,22; cuatro estudios, 662 participantes, evidencia de certeza muy baja), o en la comodidad a largo plazo (DM 0,59; IC del 95%: ­2,29 a 3,47; dos estudios, 445 participantes, evidencia de certeza muy baja). HFNC versus VNI o VPPNI No se encontró evidencia de una diferencia entre los grupos en el fracaso del tratamiento cuando se utilizó la HFNC después de la extubación o sin el uso previo de ventilación mecánica (RR 0,98; IC del 95%: 0,78 a 1,22; cinco estudios, 1758 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja), ni en la mortalidad hospitalaria (RR 0,92; IC del 95%: 0,64 a 1,31; cinco estudios, 1758 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). No hay certeza sobre el efecto del uso de la HFNC en la incidencia de la neumonía (RR 0,51; IC del 95%: 0,17 a 1,52; tres estudios, 1750 participantes; evidencia de certeza muy baja), y la HFNC podría dar lugar a poca o ninguna diferencia en el barotraumatismo (RR 1,15; IC del 95%: 0,42 a 3,14; un estudio, 830 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). La HFNC podría suponer una diferencia escasa o nula en la duración de la estancia en la UCI (DM ­0,72 días; IC del 95%: ­2,85 a 1,42; dos estudios, 246 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). El cociente PaO2/FiO2 podría ser menor hasta 24 horas con el uso de la HFNC (DM ­58,10 mmHg; IC del 95%: ­71,68 a ­44,51; tres estudios, 1086 participantes; evidencia de certeza baja). No se sabe si la HFNC mejoró la comodidad a corto plazo cuando se midió mediante puntuaciones de comodidad (DM 1,33; IC del 95%: 0,74 a 1,92; dos estudios, 258 participantes) y respuestas a cuestionarios (RR 1,30; IC del 95%: 1,10 a 1,53; un estudio, 168 participantes); la evidencia para la comodidad a corto plazo fue de certeza muy baja. Ningún estudio informó sobre la mucosa nasal ni el traumatismo cutáneo. CONCLUSIONES DE LOS AUTORES: La HFNC podría dar lugar a un menor fracaso del tratamiento en comparación con la oxigenoterapia estándar, pero probablemente suponga una escasa o nula diferencia en el fracaso del tratamiento en comparación con la VNI o la VPPNI. Para la mayoría de los demás desenlaces de la revisión, no se encontró evidencia de una diferencia en el efecto. Sin embargo, la certeza de la evidencia se consideró baja o muy baja. Se encontró un gran número de estudios en curso; incluirlos en futuras actualizaciones podría aumentar la certeza o podría alterar la dirección de estos efectos.

Barotrauma in mechanically ventilated patients with Coronavirus disease 2019: a survey of 38 hospitals in Lombardy, Italy.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to describe the incidence and risk factors of barotrauma in patients with the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on invasive mechanical ventilation, during the outbreak in our region (Lombardy, Italy). METHODS: The study was an electronic survey open from March 27th to May 2nd, 2020. Patients with COVID-19 who developed barotrauma while on invasive mechanical ventilation from 61 hospitals of the COVID-19 Lombardy Intensive Care Unit network were involved. RESULTS: The response rate was 38/61 (62%). The incidence of barotrauma was 145/2041 (7.1%; 95%-CI: 6.1-8.3%). Only a few cases occurred with ventilatory settings that may be considered non-protective such as a plateau airway pressure >35 cmH2O (2/113 [2%]), a driving airway pressure >15 cmH2O (30/113 [27%]), or a tidal volume >8 mL/kg of ideal body weight and a plateau airway pressure >30 cmH2O (12/134 [9%]). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of a survey, patients with COVID-19 might be at high risk for barotrauma during invasive (and allegedly lung-protective) mechanical ventilation.

Increased Incidence of Barotrauma in Patients with COVID-19 on Invasive Mechanical Ventilation.

Background A high number of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia who had barotrauma related to invasive mechanical ventilation at the authors' institution were observed. Purpose To determine if the rate of barotrauma in patients with COVID-19 infection was greater than in other patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation at the authors' institution. Materials and Methods In this retrospective study, clinical and imaging data of patients seen between March 1, 2020, and April 6, 2020, who tested positive for COVID-19 and experienced barotrauma associated with invasive mechanical ventilation, were compared with patients without COVID-19 infection during the same period. Historical comparison was made to barotrauma rates of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome from February 1, 2016, to February 1, 2020, at the authors' institution. Comparison of patient groups was performed using categoric or continuous statistical testing as appropriate, with multivariable regression analysis. Patient survival was assessed using Kaplan-Meier curves analysis. Results A total of 601 patients with COVID-19 infection underwent invasive mechanical ventilation (mean age, 63 years ± 15 [standard deviation]; 71% men). Of the total, there were 89 (15%) patients with one or more barotrauma events for a total of 145 barotrauma events (24% overall events) (95% confidence interval [CI]: 21%, 28%). During the same period, 196 patients without COVID-19 infection (mean age, 64 years ± 19; 52% men) with invasive mechanical ventilation had one barotrauma event (0.5%; 95% CI: 0%, 3%; P < .001 vs the group with COVID-19 infection). Of 285 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome on invasive mechanical ventilation during the previous 4 years (mean age, 68 years ± 17; 60% men), 28 patients (10%) had 31 barotrauma events, with an overall barotrauma rate of 11% (95% CI: 8%, 15%; P < .001 vs the group with COVID-19 infection). Barotrauma is an independent risk factor for death in COVID-19 (odds ratio = 2.2; P = .03) and is associated with a longer hospital stay (odds ratio = 0.92; P < .001). Conclusion Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection and invasive mechanical ventilation had a higher rate of barotrauma than patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and patients without COVID-19 infection. © RSNA, 2020 Online supplemental material is available for this article.

Incidence of Barotrauma in Patients With COVID-19 Pneumonia During Prolonged Invasive Mechanical Ventilation - A Case-Control Study.

BACKGROUND: SARS-CoV2 can cause pulmonary failure requiring prolonged invasive mechanical ventilation (MV). Lung protective ventilation strategies are recommended in order to minimize ventilator induced lung injury. Whether patients with COVID-19 have the same risk for complications including barotrauma is still unknown. Therefore, we investigated barotrauma in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia requiring prolonged MV. METHODS: All patients meeting diagnosis criteria for ARDS according to the Berlin Definition, with PCR positive SARS-CoV2 infection and prolonged mechanical ventilation, defined as ≥2 days, treated at our ARDS referral center between March and April 2020 were included in a retrospective registry analysis. Complications were detected by manual review of all patient data including respiratory data, imaging studies, and patient files. RESULTS: A total of 20 patients with severe COVID-19 pulmonary failure (Overall characteristics: median age: 61 years, female gender 6, median duration of MV 22 days) were analyzed. Eight patients (40%) developed severe barotrauma during MV (after median 18 days, range: 1-32) including pneumothorax (5/20), pneumomediastinum (5/20), pneumopericard (1/20), and extended subcutaneous emphysema (5/20). Median respirator settings 24 hours before barotrauma were: Peak inspiratory pressure (Ppeak) 29 cm H2O (range: 27-35), positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) 14 cm H2O (range: 5-24), tidal volume (VT) 5.4ml/kg predicted body weight (range 0.4-8.6), plateau pressure (Pplateau) 27 cm H2O (range: 19-30). Mechanical ventilation was significantly more invasive on several occasions in patients without barotrauma. CONCLUSION: Barotrauma in COVID-19 induced respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation was found in 40% of patients included in this registry. Our data suggest that barotrauma in COVID-19 may occur even when following recommendations for lung protective MV.