Differences in clinical characteristics and quantitative lung CT features between vaccinated and not vaccinated hospitalized COVID-19 patients in Italy.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the differences in the clinical characteristics and severity of lung impairment, assessed by quantitative lung CT scan, between vaccinated and non-vaccinated hospitalized patients with COVID-19; and to identify the variables with best prognostic prediction according to SARS-CoV-2 vaccination status. We recorded clinical, laboratory and quantitative lung CT scan data in 684 consecutive patients [580 (84.8%) vaccinated, and 104 (15.2%) non-vaccinated], admitted between January and December 2021. RESULTS: Vaccinated patients were significantly older 78 [69-84] vs 67 [53-79] years and with more comorbidities. Vaccinated and non-vaccinated patients had similar PaO2/FiO2 (300 [252-342] vs 307 [247-357] mmHg; respiratory rate 22 [8-26] vs 19 [18-26] bpm); total lung weight (918 [780-1069] vs 954 [802-1149] g), lung gas volume (2579 [1801-3628] vs 2370 [1675-3289] mL) and non-aerated tissue fraction (10 [7.3-16.0] vs 8.5 [6.0-14.1] %). The overall crude hospital mortality was similar between the vaccinated and non-vaccinated group (23.1% vs 21.2%). However, Cox regression analysis, adjusted for age, ethnicity, age unadjusted Charlson Comorbidity Index and calendar month of admission, showed a 40% reduction in hospital mortality in the vaccinated patients (HRadj = 0.60, 95%CI 0.38-0.95). CONCLUSIONS: Hospitalized vaccinated patients with COVID-19, although older and with more comorbidities, presented a similar impairment in gas exchange and lung CT scan compared to non-vaccinated patients, but were at a lower risk of mortality.

Mechanical Power Ratio and Respiratory Treatment Escalation in COVID-19 Pneumonia: A Secondary Analysis of a Prospectively Enrolled Cohort.

BACKGROUND: Under the hypothesis that mechanical power ratio could identify the spontaneously breathing patients with a higher risk of respiratory failure, this study assessed lung mechanics in nonintubated patients with COVID-19 pneumonia, aiming to (1) describe their characteristics; (2) compare lung mechanics between patients who received respiratory treatment escalation and those who did not; and (3) identify variables associated with the need for respiratory treatment escalation. METHODS: Secondary analysis of prospectively enrolled cohort involving 111 consecutive spontaneously breathing adults receiving continuous positive airway pressure, enrolled from September 2020 to December 2021. Lung mechanics and other previously reported predictive indices were calculated, as well as a novel variable: the mechanical power ratio (the ratio between the actual and the expected baseline mechanical power). Patients were grouped according to the outcome: (1) no-treatment escalation (patient supported in continuous positive airway pressure until improvement) and (2) treatment escalation (escalation of the respiratory support to noninvasive or invasive mechanical ventilation), and the association between lung mechanics/predictive scores and outcome was assessed. RESULTS: At day 1, patients undergoing treatment escalation had spontaneous tidal volume similar to those of patients who did not (7.1 ± 1.9 vs. 7.1 ± 1.4 ml/kgIBW; P = 0.990). In contrast, they showed higher respiratory rate (20 ± 5 vs. 18 ± 5 breaths/min; P = 0.028), minute ventilation (9.2 ± 3.0 vs. 7.9 ± 2.4 l/min; P = 0.011), tidal pleural pressure (8.1 ± 3.7 vs. 6.0 ± 3.1 cm H2O; P = 0.003), mechanical power ratio (2.4 ± 1.4 vs. 1.7 ± 1.5; P = 0.042), and lower partial pressure of alveolar oxygen/fractional inspired oxygen tension (174 ± 64 vs. 220 ± 95; P = 0.007). The mechanical power (area under the curve, 0.738; 95% CI, 0.636 to 0.839] P < 0.001), the mechanical power ratio (area under the curve, 0.734; 95% CI, 0.625 to 0.844; P < 0.001), and the pressure-rate index (area under the curve, 0.733; 95% CI, 0.631 to 0.835; P < 0.001) showed the highest areas under the curve. CONCLUSIONS: In this COVID-19 cohort, tidal volume was similar in patients undergoing treatment escalation and in patients who did not; mechanical power, its ratio, and pressure-rate index were the variables presenting the highest association with the clinical outcome.

Positive end-expiratory pressure in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: the heterogeneous effects.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that as CARDS may present different pathophysiological features than classic ARDS, the application of high levels of end-expiratory pressure is questionable. Our first aim was to investigate the effects of 5-15 cmH2O of PEEP on partitioned respiratory mechanics, gas exchange and dead space; secondly, we investigated whether respiratory system compliance and severity of hypoxemia could affect the response to PEEP on partitioned respiratory mechanics, gas exchange and dead space, dividing the population according to the median value of respiratory system compliance and oxygenation. Thirdly, we explored the effects of an additional PEEP selected according to the Empirical PEEP-FiO2 table of the EPVent-2 study on partitioned respiratory mechanics and gas exchange in a subgroup of patients. METHODS: Sixty-one paralyzed mechanically ventilated patients with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 were enrolled (age 60 [54-67] years, PaO2/FiO2 113 [79-158] mmHg and PEEP 10 [10-10] cmH2O). Keeping constant tidal volume, respiratory rate and oxygen fraction, two PEEP levels (5 and 15 cmH2O) were selected. In a subgroup of patients an additional PEEP level was applied according to an Empirical PEEP-FiO2 table (empirical PEEP). At each PEEP level gas exchange, partitioned lung mechanics and hemodynamic were collected. RESULTS: At 15 cmH2O of PEEP the lung elastance, lung stress and mechanical power were higher compared to 5 cmH2O. The PaO2/FiO2, arterial carbon dioxide and ventilatory ratio increased at 15 cmH2O of PEEP. The arterial-venous oxygen difference and central venous saturation were higher at 15 cmH2O of PEEP. Both the mechanics and gas exchange variables significantly increased although with high heterogeneity. By increasing the PEEP from 5 to 15 cmH2O, the changes in partitioned respiratory mechanics and mechanical power were not related to hypoxemia or respiratory compliance. The empirical PEEP was 18 ± 1 cmH2O. The empirical PEEP significantly increased the PaO2/FiO2 but also driving pressure, lung elastance, lung stress and mechanical power compared to 15 cmH2O of PEEP. CONCLUSIONS: In COVID-19 ARDS during the early phase the effects of raising PEEP are highly variable and cannot easily be predicted by respiratory system characteristics, because of the heterogeneity of the disease.

Acid-Base Disorders in COVID-19 Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Our aim was to investigate the distribution of acid-base disorders in patients with COVID-19 ARDS using both the Henderson-Hasselbalch and Stewart's approach and to explore if hypoxemia can influence acid-base disorders. COVID-19 ARDS patients, within the first 48 h of the need for a non-invasive respiratory support, were retrospectively enrolled. Respiratory support was provided by helmet continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or by non-invasive ventilation. One hundred and four patients were enrolled, 84% treated with CPAP and 16% with non-invasive ventilation. Using the Henderson-Hasselbalch approach, 40% and 32% of patients presented respiratory and metabolic alkalosis, respectively; 13% did not present acid-base disorders. Using Stewart's approach, 43% and 33% had a respiratory and metabolic alkalosis, respectively; 12% of patients had a mixed disorder characterized by normal pH with a lower SID. The severe hypoxemic and moderate hypoxemic group presented similar frequencies of respiratory and metabolic alkalosis. The most frequent acid-base disorders were respiratory and metabolic alkalosis using both the Henderson-Hasselbalch and Stewart's approach. Stewart's approach detected mixed disorders with a normal pH probably generated by the combined effect of strong ions and weak acids. The impairment of oxygenation did not affect acid-base disorders.

Putative Role of the Lung-Brain Axis in the Pathogenesis of COVID-19-Associated Respiratory Failure: A Systematic Review.

The emergence of SARS-CoV-2 and its related disease caused by coronavirus (COVID-19) has posed a huge threat to the global population, with millions of deaths and the creation of enormous social and healthcare pressure. Several studies have shown that besides respiratory illness, other organs may be damaged as well, including the heart, kidneys, and brain. Current evidence reports a high frequency of neurological manifestations in COVID-19, with significant prognostic implications. Importantly, emerging literature is showing that the virus may spread to the central nervous system through neuronal routes, hitting the brainstem and cardiorespiratory centers, potentially exacerbating the respiratory illness. In this systematic review, we searched public databases for all available evidence and discuss current clinical and pre-clinical data on the relationship between the lung and brain during COVID-19. Acknowledging the involvement of these primordial brain areas in the pathogenesis of the disease may fuel research on the topic and allow the development of new therapeutic strategies.

Role of total lung stress on the progression of early COVID-19 pneumonia.

PURPOSE: We investigated if the stress applied to the lung during non-invasive respiratory support may contribute to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) progression. METHODS: Single-center, prospective, cohort study of 140 consecutive COVID-19 pneumonia patients treated in high-dependency unit with continuous positive airway pressure (n = 131) or non-invasive ventilation (n = 9). We measured quantitative lung computed tomography, esophageal pressure swings and total lung stress. RESULTS: Patients were divided in five subgroups based on their baseline PaO2/FiO2 (day 1): non-CARDS (median PaO2/FiO2 361 mmHg, IQR [323-379]), mild (224 mmHg [211-249]), mild-moderate (173 mmHg [164-185]), moderate-severe (126 mmHg [114-138]) and severe (88 mmHg [86-99], p < 0.001). Each subgroup had similar median lung weight: 1215 g [1083-1294], 1153 [888-1321], 968 [858-1253], 1060 [869-1269], and 1127 [937-1193] (p = 0.37). They also had similar non-aerated tissue fraction: 10.4% [5.9-13.7], 9.6 [7.1-15.8], 9.4 [5.8-16.7], 8.4 [6.7-12.3] and 9.4 [5.9-13.8], respectively (p = 0.85). Treatment failure of CPAP/NIV occurred in 34 patients (24.3%). Only three variables, at day one, distinguished patients with negative outcome: PaO2/FiO2 ratio (OR 0.99 [0.98-0.99], p = 0.02), esophageal pressure swing (OR 1.13 [1.01-1.27], p = 0.032) and total stress (OR 1.17 [1.06-1.31], p = 0.004). When these three variables were evaluated together in a multivariate logistic regression analysis, only the total stress was independently associated with negative outcome (OR 1.16 [1.01-1.33], p = 0.032). CONCLUSIONS: In early COVID-19 pneumonia, hypoxemia is not linked to computed tomography (CT) pathoanatomy, differently from typical ARDS. High lung stress was independently associated with the failure of non-invasive respiratory support.

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.