Lung function and breathing patterns in hospitalised COVID-19 survivors: a review of post-COVID-19 Clinics.

INTRODUCTION: There is relatively little published on the effects of COVID-19 on respiratory physiology, particularly breathing patterns. We sought to determine if there were lasting detrimental effect following hospital discharge and if these related to the severity of COVID-19. METHODS: We reviewed lung function and breathing patterns in COVID-19 survivors > 3 months after discharge, comparing patients who had been admitted to the intensive therapy unit (ITU) (n = 47) to those who just received ward treatments (n = 45). Lung function included spirometry and gas transfer and breathing patterns were measured with structured light plethysmography. Continuous data were compared with an independent t-test or Mann Whitney-U test (depending on distribution) and nominal data were compared using a Fisher's exact test (for 2 categories in 2 groups) or a chi-squared test (for > 2 categories in 2 groups). A p-value of < 0.05 was taken to be statistically significant. RESULTS: We found evidence of pulmonary restriction (reduced vital capacity and/or alveolar volume) in 65.4% of all patients. 36.1% of all patients has a reduced transfer factor (TLCO) but the majority of these (78.1%) had a preserved/increased transfer coefficient (KCO), suggesting an extrapulmonary cause. There were no major differences between ITU and ward lung function, although KCO alone was higher in the ITU patients (p = 0.03). This could be explained partly by obesity, respiratory muscle fatigue, localised microvascular changes, or haemosiderosis from lung damage. Abnormal breathing patterns were observed in 18.8% of subjects, although no consistent pattern of breathing pattern abnormalities was evident. CONCLUSIONS: An "extrapulmonary restrictive" like pattern appears to be a common phenomenon in previously admitted COVID-19 survivors. Whilst the cause of this is not clear, the effects seem to be similar on patients whether or not they received mechanical ventilation or had ward based respiratory support/supplemental oxygen.

Chest wall loading during supine and prone position in patients with COVID-19 ARDS: effects on respiratory mechanics and gas exchange.

BACKGROUND: Recent reports of patients with severe, late-stage COVID-19 ARDS with reduced respiratory system compliance described paradoxical decreases in plateau pressure and increases in respiratory system compliance in response to anterior chest wall loading. We aimed to assess the effect of chest wall loading during supine and prone position in ill patients with COVID-19-related ARDS and to investigate the effect of a low or normal baseline respiratory system compliance on the findings. METHODS: This is a single-center, prospective, cohort study in the intensive care unit of a COVID-19 referral center. Consecutive mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients with COVID-19-related ARDS were enrolled and classified as higher (≥ 40 ml/cmH2O) or lower respiratory system compliance (< 40 ml/cmH2O). The study included four steps, each lasting 6 h: Step 1, supine position, Step 2, 10-kg continuous chest wall compression (supine + weight), Step 3, prone position, Step 4, 10-kg continuous chest wall compression (prone + weight). The mechanical properties of the respiratory system, gas exchange and alveolar dead space were measured at the end of each step. RESULTS: Totally, 40 patients were enrolled. In the whole cohort, neither oxygenation nor respiratory system compliance changed between supine and supine + weight; both increased during prone positioning and were unaffected by chest wall loading in the prone position. Alveolar dead space was unchanged during all the steps. In 16 patients with reduced compliance, PaO2/FiO2 significantly increased from supine to supine + weight and further with prone and prone + weight (107 ± 15.4 vs. 120 ± 18.5 vs. 146 ± 27.0 vs. 159 ± 30.4, respectively; p < 0.001); alveolar dead space decreased from both supine and prone position after chest wall loading, and respiratory system compliance significantly increased from supine to supine + weight and from prone to prone + weight (23.9 ± 3.5 vs. 30.9 ± 5.7 and 31.1 ± 5.7 vs. 37.8 ± 8.7 ml/cmH2O, p < 0.001). The improvement was higher the lower the baseline compliance. CONCLUSIONS: Unlike prone positioning, chest wall loading had no effects on respiratory system compliance, gas exchange or alveolar dead space in an unselected cohort of critically ill patients with C-ARDS. Only patients with a low respiratory system compliance experienced an improvement, with a higher response the lower the baseline compliance.

Paradoxical Positioning: Does "Head Up" Always Improve Mechanics and Lung Protection?

OBJECTIVES: Head-elevated body positioning, a default clinical practice, predictably increases end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure and aerated lung volume. In acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), however, the net effect of such vertical inclination on tidal mechanics depends upon whether lung recruitment or overdistension predominates. We hypothesized that in moderate to severe ARDS, bed inclination toward vertical unloads the chest wall but adversely affects overall respiratory system compliance (C rs ). DESIGN: Prospective physiologic study. SETTING: Two medical ICUs in the United States. PATIENTS: Seventeen patients with ARDS, predominantly moderate to severe. INTERVENTION: Patients were ventilated passively by volume control. We measured airway pressures at baseline (noninclined) and following bed inclination toward vertical by an additional 15°. At baseline and following inclination, we manually loaded the chest wall to determine if C rs increased or paradoxically declined, suggestive of end-tidal overdistension. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Inclination resulted in a higher plateau pressure (supineΔ: 2.8 ± 3.3 cm H 2 O [ p = 0.01]; proneΔ: 3.3 ± 2.5 cm H 2 O [ p = 0.004]), higher driving pressure (supineΔ: 2.9 ± 3.3 cm H 2 O [ p = 0.01]; proneΔ: 3.3 ± 2.8 cm H 2 O [ p = 0.007]), and lower C rs (supine Δ: 3.4 ± 3.7 mL/cm H 2 O [ p = 0.01]; proneΔ: 3.1 ± 3.2 mL/cm H 2 O [ p = 0.02]). Following inclination, manual loading of the chest wall restored C rs and driving pressure to baseline (preinclination) values. CONCLUSIONS: In advanced ARDS, bed inclination toward vertical adversely affects C rs and therefore affects the numerical values for plateau and driving tidal pressures commonly targeted in lung protective strategies. These changes are fully reversed with manual loading of the chest wall, suggestive of end-tidal overdistension in the upright position. Body inclination should be considered a modifiable determinant of transpulmonary pressure and lung protection, directionally similar to tidal volume and positive end-expiratory pressure.

Effects of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure in "High Compliance" Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical observation suggests that early acute respiratory distress syndrome induced by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 may be "atypical" due to a discrepancy between a relatively unaffected static respiratory system compliance and a significant hypoxemia. This would imply an "atypical" response to the positive end-expiratory pressure. DESIGN: Single-center, unblinded, crossover study. SETTING: ICU of Bari Policlinico Academic Hospital (Italy), dedicated to care patients with confirmed diagnosis of novel coronavirus disease 2019. PATIENTS: Eight patients with early severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 acute respiratory distress syndrome and static respiratory compliance higher than or equal to 50 mL/cm H2O. INTERVENTIONS: We compared a "lower" and a "higher" positive end-expiratory pressure approach, respectively, according to the intervention arms of the acute respiratory distress syndrome network and the positive end-expiratory pressure setting in adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome studies. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Patients were ventilated with the acute respiratory distress syndrome network and, subsequently, with the ExPress protocol. After 1 hour of ventilation, for each protocol, we recorded arterial blood gas, respiratory mechanics, alveolar recruitment, and hemodynamic variables. Comparisons were performed with analysis of variance for repeated measures or Friedman test as appropriate. Positive end-expiratory pressure was increased from 9 ± 3.5 to 17.7 ± 1.7 cm H2O (p < 0.01). Alveolar recruitment was 450 ± 111 mL. Static respiratory system compliance decreased from 58.3 ± 7.6 mL/cm H2O to 47.4 ± 14.5 mL/cm H2O (p = 0.018) and the "stress index" increased from 0.97 ± 0.03 to 1.22 ± 0.07 (p < 0.001). The PaO2/FIO2 ratio increased from 131 ± 22 to 207 ± 41 (p < 0.001), and the PaCO2 increased from 45.9 ± 12.7 to 49.8 ± 13.2 mm Hg (p < 0.001). The cardiac index went from 3.6 ± 0.4 to 2.9 ± 0.6 L/min/m (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that the "higher" positive end-expiratory pressure approach in patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 acute respiratory distress syndrome and high compliance improves oxygenation and lung aeration but may result in alveolar hyperinflation and hemodynamic alterations.

Simulation to minimise patient self-inflicted lung injury: are we almost there?

Computational modelling has been used to enlighten pathophysiological issues in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) using a sophisticated, integrated cardiopulmonary model. COVID-19 ARDS is a pathophysiologically distinct entity characterised by dissociation between impairment in gas exchange and respiratory system mechanics, especially in the early stages of ARDS. Weaver and colleagues used computational modelling to elucidate factors contributing to generation of patient self-inflicted lung injury, and evaluated the effects of various spontaneous respiratory efforts with different oxygenation and ventilatory support modes. Their findings indicate that mechanical forces generated in the lung parenchyma are only counterbalanced when the respiratory support mode reduces the intensity of respiratory efforts.

Mechanical ventilation in COVID-19: A physiological perspective.

NEW FINDINGS: What is the topic of this review? This review presents the fundamental concepts of respiratory physiology and pathophysiology, with particular reference to lung mechanics and the pulmonary phenotype associated with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and subsequent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia. What advances does it highlight? The review provides a critical summary of the main physiological aspects to be considered for safe and effective mechanical ventilation in patients with severe COVID-19 in the intensive care unit. ABSTRACT: Severe respiratory failure from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia not responding to non-invasive respiratory support requires mechanical ventilation. Although ventilation can be a life-saving therapy, it can cause further lung injury if airway pressure and flow and their timing are not tailored to the respiratory system mechanics of the individual patient. The pathophysiology of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection can lead to a pattern of lung injury in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia typically associated with two distinct phenotypes, along a temporal and pathophysiological continuum, characterized by different levels of elastance, ventilation-to-perfusion ratio, right-to-left shunt, lung weight and recruitability. Understanding the underlying pathophysiology, duration of symptoms, radiological characteristics and lung mechanics at the individual patient level is crucial for the appropriate choice of mechanical ventilation settings to optimize gas exchange and prevent further lung injury. By critical analysis of the literature, we propose fundamental physiological and mechanical criteria for the selection of ventilation settings for COVID-19 patients in intensive care units. In particular, the choice of tidal volume should be based on obtaining a driving pressure < 14 cmH2 O, ensuring the avoidance of hypoventilation in patients with preserved compliance and of excessive strain in patients with smaller lung volumes and lower lung compliance. The level of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) should be informed by the measurement of the potential for lung recruitability, where patients with greater recruitability potential may benefit from higher PEEP levels. Prone positioning is often beneficial and should be considered early. The rationale for the proposed mechanical ventilation settings criteria is presented and discussed.

Respiratory function assessment at the time of a new respiratory virus pandemic.

We must be aware that new respiratory virus pandemic can happen frequently. Standard lung function tests should keep their crucial role to assist the clinicians in the decision-making process, but they are at risk for the spread of infection because of the generated droplets. We used opto-electronic plethysmography to investigate the post-COVID-19 syndrome on 12 patients after ICU. We found normal ventilatory pattern at rest, a restrictive pattern located in the ribcage during vital capacity and surgical mask to significantly increase minute ventilation. The attention on unconventional respiratory function tests should be sponsored for the important information they can provide.

Longitudinal changes in compliance, oxygenation and ventilatory ratio in COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19 pulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Differences in physiology of ARDS have been described between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients. This study aimed to compare initial values and longitudinal changes in respiratory system compliance (CRS), oxygenation parameters and ventilatory ratio (VR) in patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 pulmonary ARDS matched on oxygenation. METHODS: 135 patients with COVID-19 ARDS from two centers were included in a physiological study; 767 non-COVID-19 ARDS from a clinical trial were used for the purpose of at least 1:2 matching. A propensity-matching was based on age, severity score, oxygenation, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and pulmonary cause of ARDS and allowed to include 112 COVID-19 and 198 non-COVID pulmonary ARDS. RESULTS: The two groups were similar on initial oxygenation. COVID-19 patients had a higher body mass index, higher CRS at day 1 (median [IQR], 35 [28-44] vs 32 [26-38] ml cmH2O-1, p = 0.037). At day 1, CRS was correlated with oxygenation only in non-COVID-19 patients; 61.6% and 68.2% of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 pulmonary ARDS were still ventilated at day 7 (p = 0.241). Oxygenation became lower in COVID-19 than in non-COVID-19 patients at days 3 and 7, while CRS became similar. VR was lower at day 1 in COVID-19 than in non-COVID-19 patients but increased from day 1 to 7 only in COVID-19 patients. VR was higher at days 1, 3 and 7 in the COVID-19 patients ventilated using heat and moisture exchangers compared to heated humidifiers. After adjustment on PaO2/FiO2, PEEP and humidification device, CRS and VR were found not different between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients at day 7. Day-28 mortality did not differ between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 patients (25.9% and 23.7%, respectively, p = 0.666). CONCLUSIONS: For a similar initial oxygenation, COVID-19 ARDS initially differs from classical ARDS by a higher CRS, dissociated from oxygenation. CRS become similar for patients remaining on mechanical ventilation during the first week of evolution, but oxygenation becomes lower in COVID-19 patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov NCT04385004.

Personalized mechanical ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome.

A personalized mechanical ventilation approach for patients with adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) based on lung physiology and morphology, ARDS etiology, lung imaging, and biological phenotypes may improve ventilation practice and outcome. However, additional research is warranted before personalized mechanical ventilation strategies can be applied at the bedside. Ventilatory parameters should be titrated based on close monitoring of targeted physiologic variables and individualized goals. Although low tidal volume (VT) is a standard of care, further individualization of VT may necessitate the evaluation of lung volume reserve (e.g., inspiratory capacity). Low driving pressures provide a target for clinicians to adjust VT and possibly to optimize positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), while maintaining plateau pressures below safety thresholds. Esophageal pressure monitoring allows estimation of transpulmonary pressure, but its use requires technical skill and correct physiologic interpretation for clinical application at the bedside. Mechanical power considers ventilatory parameters as a whole in the optimization of ventilation setting, but further studies are necessary to assess its clinical relevance. The identification of recruitability in patients with ARDS is essential to titrate and individualize PEEP. To define gas-exchange targets for individual patients, clinicians should consider issues related to oxygen transport and dead space. In this review, we discuss the rationale for personalized approaches to mechanical ventilation for patients with ARDS, the role of lung imaging, phenotype identification, physiologically based individualized approaches to ventilation, and a future research agenda.

The effect of respiratory activity, non-invasive respiratory support and facemasks on aerosol generation and its relevance to COVID-19.

Respirable aerosols (< 5 µm in diameter) present a high risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Guidelines recommend using aerosol precautions during aerosol-generating procedures, and droplet (> 5 µm) precautions at other times. However, emerging evidence indicates respiratory activities may be a more important source of aerosols than clinical procedures such as tracheal intubation. We aimed to measure the size, total number and volume of all human aerosols exhaled during respiratory activities and therapies. We used a novel chamber with an optical particle counter sampling at 100 l.min-1 to count and size-fractionate close to all exhaled particles (0.5-25 µm). We compared emissions from ten healthy subjects during six respiratory activities (quiet breathing; talking; shouting; forced expiratory manoeuvres; exercise; and coughing) with three respiratory therapies (high-flow nasal oxygen and single or dual circuit non-invasive positive pressure ventilation). Activities were repeated while wearing facemasks. When compared with quiet breathing, exertional respiratory activities increased particle counts 34.6-fold during talking and 370.8-fold during coughing (p < 0.001). High-flow nasal oxygen 60 at l.min-1 increased particle counts 2.3-fold (p = 0.031) during quiet breathing. Single and dual circuit non-invasive respiratory therapy at 25/10 cm.H2 O with quiet breathing increased counts by 2.6-fold and 7.8-fold, respectively (both p < 0.001). During exertional activities, respiratory therapies and facemasks reduced emissions compared with activities alone. Respiratory activities (including exertional breathing and coughing) which mimic respiratory patterns during illness generate substantially more aerosols than non-invasive respiratory therapies, which conversely can reduce total emissions. We argue the risk of aerosol exposure is underappreciated and warrants widespread, targeted interventions.

SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia succesfully treated with cpap and cycles of tripod position: a case report.

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia induced by 2019 Coronavirus (COVID-19) is characterized by hypoxemic respiratory failure that may present with a broad spectrum of clinical phenotypes. At the beginning, patients may have normal lung compliance and be responsive to noninvasive ventilatory support, such as CPAP. However, the transition to more severe respiratory failure - Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS-CoV-2), necessitating invasive ventilation is often abrupt and characterized by a severe V/Q mismatch that require cycles of prone positioning. The aim of this case is to report the effect on gas exchange, respiratory mechanics and hemodynamics of tripod (or orthopneic sitting position) used as an alternative to prone position in a patient with mild SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia ventilated with helmet CPAP. CASE PRESENTATION: A 77-year-old awake and collaborating male patient with mild SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia and ventilated with Helmet CPAP, showed sudden worsening of gas exchange without dyspnea. After an unsuccessful attempt of prone positioning, we alternated three-hours cycles of semi-recumbent and tripod position, still keeping him in CPAP. Arterial blood gases (PaO2/FiO2, PaO2, SaO2, PaCO2 and A/a gradient), respiratory (VE, VT, RR) and hemodynamic parameters (HR, MAP) were collected in the supine and tripod position. Cycles of tripod position were continued for 3 days. The patient had a clinically important improvement in arterial blood gases and respiratory parameters, with stable hemodynamic and was successfully weaned and discharged to ward 10 days after pneumonia onset. CONCLUSIONS: Tripod position during Helmet CPAP can be applied safely in patients with mild SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia, with improvement of oxygenation and V/Q matching, thus reducing the need for intubation.

Emergency ventilator for COVID-19.

The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted the world in 2020 by spreading at unprecedented rates and causing tens of thousands of fatalities within a few months. The number of deaths dramatically increased in regions where the number of patients in need of hospital care exceeded the availability of care. Many COVID-19 patients experience Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), a condition that can be treated with mechanical ventilation. In response to the need for mechanical ventilators, designed and tested an emergency ventilator (EV) that can control a patient's peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) and breathing rate, while keeping a positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP). This article describes the rapid design, prototyping, and testing of the EV. The development process was enabled by rapid design iterations using additive manufacturing (AM). In the initial design phase, iterations between design, AM, and testing enabled a working prototype within one week. The designs of the 16 different components of the ventilator were locked by additively manufacturing and testing a total of 283 parts having parametrically varied dimensions. In the second stage, AM was used to produce 75 functional prototypes to support engineering evaluation and animal testing. The devices were tested over more than two million cycles. We also developed an electronic monitoring system and with automatic alarm to provide for safe operation, along with training materials and user guides. The final designs are available online under a free license. The designs have been transferred to more than 70 organizations in 15 countries. This project demonstrates the potential for ultra-fast product design, engineering, and testing of medical devices needed for COVID-19 emergency response.

Electrical impedance tomography to titrate positive end-expiratory pressure in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome.

RATIONALE: Patients with coronavirus disease-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (C-ARDS) could have a specific physiological phenotype as compared with those affected by ARDS from other causes (NC-ARDS). OBJECTIVES: To describe the effect of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on respiratory mechanics in C-ARDS patients in supine and prone position, and as compared to NC-ARDS. The primary endpoint was the best PEEP defined as the smallest sum of hyperdistension and collapse. METHODS: Seventeen patients with moderate-to-severe C-ARDS were monitored by electrical impedance tomography (EIT) and evaluated during PEEP titration in supine (n = 17) and prone (n = 14) position and compared with 13 NC-ARDS patients investigated by EIT in our department before the COVID-19 pandemic. RESULTS: As compared with NC-ARDS, C-ARDS exhibited a higher median best PEEP (defined using EIT as the smallest sum of hyperdistension and collapse, 12 [9, 12] vs. 9 [6, 9] cmH2O, p < 0.01), more collapse at low PEEP, and less hyperdistension at high PEEP. The median value of the best PEEP was similar in C-ARDS in supine and prone position: 12 [9, 12] vs. 12 [10, 15] cmH2O, p = 0.59. The response to PEEP was also similar in C-ARDS patients with higher vs. lower respiratory system compliance. CONCLUSION: An intermediate PEEP level seems appropriate in half of our C-ARDS patients. There is no solid evidence that compliance at low PEEP could predict the response to PEEP.

Computational simulation to assess patient safety of uncompensated COVID-19 two-patient ventilator sharing using the Pulse Physiology Engine.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic is stretching medical resources internationally, sometimes creating ventilator shortages that complicate clinical and ethical situations. The possibility of needing to ventilate multiple patients with a single ventilator raises patient health and safety concerns in addition to clinical conditions needing treatment. Wherever ventilators are employed, additional tubing and splitting adaptors may be available. Adjustable flow-compensating resistance for differences in lung compliance on individual limbs may not be readily implementable. By exploring a number and range of possible contributing factors using computational simulation without risk of patient harm, this paper attempts to define useful bounds for ventilation parameters when compensatory resistance in limbs of a shared breathing circuit is not possible. This desperate approach to shared ventilation support would be a last resort when alternatives have been exhausted. METHODS: A whole-body computational physiology model (using lumped parameters) was used to simulate each patient being ventilated. The primary model of a single patient with a dedicated ventilator was augmented to model two patients sharing a single ventilator. In addition to lung mechanics or estimation of CO2 and pH expected for set ventilation parameters (considerations of lung physiology alone), full physiological simulation provides estimates of additional values for oxyhemoglobin saturation, arterial oxygen tension, and other patient parameters. A range of ventilator settings and patient characteristics were simulated for paired patients. FINDINGS: To be useful for clinicians, attention has been directed to clinically available parameters. These simulations show patient outcome during multi-patient ventilation is most closely correlated to lung compliance, oxygenation index, oxygen saturation index, and end-tidal carbon dioxide of individual patients. The simulated patient outcome metrics were satisfactory when the lung compliance difference between two patients was less than 12 mL/cmH2O, and the oxygen saturation index difference was less than 2 mmHg. INTERPRETATION: In resource-limited regions of the world, the COVID-19 pandemic will result in equipment shortages. While single-patient ventilation is preferable, if that option is unavailable and ventilator sharing using limbs without flow resistance compensation is the only available alternative, these simulations provide a conceptual framework and guidelines for clinical patient selection.

Effectiveness and safety of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation in the treatment of COVID-19-associated acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: a single center, non-ICU setting experience.

The role of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) in COVID-19 patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) is uncertain, as no direct evidence exists to support NIPPV use in such patients. We retrospectively assessed the effectiveness and safety of NIPPV in a cohort of COVID-19 patients consecutively admitted to the COVID-19 general wards of a medium-size Italian hospital, from March 6 to May 7, 2020. Healthcare workers (HCWs) caring for COVID-19 patients were monitored, undergoing nasopharyngeal swab for SARS-CoV-2 in case of onset of COVID-19 symptoms, and periodic SARS-CoV-2 screening serology. Overall, 50 patients (mean age 74.6 years) received NIPPV, of which 22 (44%) were successfully weaned, avoiding endotracheal intubation (ETI) and AHRF-related death. Due to limited life expectancy, 25 (50%) of 50 NIPPV-treated patients received a "do not intubate" (DNI) order. Among these, only 6 (24%) were weaned from NIPPV. Of the remaining 25 NIPPV-treated patients without treatment limitations, 16 (64%) were successfully weaned, 9 (36%) underwent delayed ETI and, of these, 3 (33.3%) died. NIPPV success was predicted by the use of corticosteroids (OR 15.4, CI 1.79-132.57, p 0.013) and the increase in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio measured 24-48 h after NIPPV initiation (OR 1.02, CI 1-1.03, p 0.015), while it was inversely correlated with the presence of a DNI order (OR 0.03, CI 0.001-0.57, p 0.020). During the study period, 2 of 124 (1.6%) HCWs caring for COVID-19 patients were diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. Apart from patients with limited life expectancy, NIPPV was effective in a substantially high percentage of patients with COVID-19-associated AHRF. The risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs was low.

Prone position in ARDS patients: why, when, how and for whom.

In ARDS patients, the change from supine to prone position generates a more even distribution of the gas-tissue ratios along the dependent-nondependent axis and a more homogeneous distribution of lung stress and strain. The change to prone position is generally accompanied by a marked improvement in arterial blood gases, which is mainly due to a better overall ventilation/perfusion matching. Improvement in oxygenation and reduction in mortality are the main reasons to implement prone position in patients with ARDS. The main reason explaining a decreased mortality is less overdistension in non-dependent lung regions and less cyclical opening and closing in dependent lung regions. The only absolute contraindication for implementing prone position is an unstable spinal fracture. The maneuver to change from supine to prone and vice versa requires a skilled team of 4-5 caregivers. The most frequent adverse events are pressure sores and facial edema. Recently, the use of prone position has been extended to non-intubated spontaneously breathing patients affected with COVID-19 ARDS. The effects of this intervention on outcomes are still uncertain.