Time constant to determine PEEP levels in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: We hypothesized that the measured expiratory time constant (TauE) could be a bedside parameter for the evaluation of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) settings in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients during pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV). METHODS: A prospective study was conducted including consecutively admitted adults (n = 16) with COVID-19-related ARDS requiring mechanical ventilation. A PEEP titration using PCV with a fixed driving pressure of 14 cmH2O was performed and TauE recorded at each PEEP level (0 to 18 cmH2O) in prone (n = 29) or supine (n = 24) positions. The PEEP setting with the highest TauE (TauEMAX) was considered to represent the best tradeoff between recruitment and overdistention. RESULTS: Two groups of patterns were observed in the TauE plots: recruitable (R) (75%) and nonrecruitable (NR) (25%). In the R group, the optimal PEEP and PEEP ranges were 8 ± 3 cmH2O and 6-10 cmH2O for the prone position and 9 ± 3 cmH2O and 7-12 cmH2O for the supine position. In the NR group, the optimal PEEP and PEEP ranges were 4 ± 4 cmH2O and 1-8 cmH2O for the prone position and 5 ± 3 cmH2O and 1-7 cmH2O for the supine position, respectively. The R group showed significantly higher optimal PEEP (p < 0.004) and PEEP ranges (p < 0.001) than the NR group. Forty-five percent of measurements resulted in the most optimal PEEP being significantly different between the positions (p < 0.01). Moderate positive correlation has been found between TauE vs CRS at all PEEP levels (r2 = 0.43, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: TauE may be a novel method to assess PEEP levels. There was wide variation in patient responses to PEEP, which indicates the need for personalized evaluation.

Programmed multi-level ventilation in COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: a multi-center retrospective observational study.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) with multiple programmed levels of positive end expiratory pressure (programmed multi-level ventilation; PMLV) in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective study from November 2020 to February 2021. PMLV was used with PCV in all patients with intensive care admission until improvement in oxygenation (fraction of inspired oxygen [FiO2] ≤0.50 and oxygen saturation [SpO2] >92%). The observed outcomes were improvement of hypoxemia, length of mechanical ventilation, partial pressure of carbon dioxide (PaCO2) stability, and adverse events. RESULTS: Of 188 mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19-related ARDS, we analyzed 60 patients treated with PMLV. Hypoxemia improved in 55 (92%) patients, as measured by the change in partial pressure of oxygen/FiO2 and SpO2/FiO2 ratios on day 3 versus day 1, and in 32 (66%) ventilated patients on day 7 versus day 3. The median (interquartile range) length of mechanical ventilation for survivors and non-survivors was 8.4 (4.7-14.9) and 6.7 (3.6-10.3) days, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: PMLV appears to be a safe and effective ventilation strategy for improving hypoxemia in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. Further studies are needed comparing the PMLV mode with the conventional ARDS ventilatory approach.

Should we continue searching for the single best PEEP?

Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) has been an important component of mechanical ventilation for over 50 years, yet PEEP selection remains highly debatable in the critical care community. Despite numerous studies trying to answer the ‘PEEP question’, there are often conflicting opinions when it comes to recommendations based on clinical trials [1]. Tree major studies (ALVEOLI, LOVS, EXPRESS) assessing higher versus lower PEEP in combination with low tidal volume (Vt) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) failed to show decrease in mortality, although a meta-analysis of the three trials suggested a survival benefit for a subgroup of patients with severe ARDS [2]. It is universally accepted that higher PEEP may be helpful in ARDS patients where recruitability is expected but proves harmful in other groups of patients contributing to ventilation induced lung injury (VILI). Therefore, as many authors have suggested that not only one PEEP does not fit all, but also looking for the ‘best’ PEEP has little meaning because within mechanical power, it is just one part of the whole [3]. Since the introduction of PEEP into clinical practice, researchers have been focusing on finding the single most suitable PEEP that usually corresponded to best lung mechanics (i.e., highest compliance of the respiratory system) or oxygenation. However, we would like to challenge this idea and introduce another approach to PEEP research in critically ill lungs. We hypothesize, that patients with nonhomogeneous lungs could be supported on mechanical ventilation using multiple and alternating levels of PEEP. In the following paragraphs, we will list and elaborate on several reasons supporting our hypothesis of potential benefits of using multiple alternating PEEP levels.

On pandemics and pivots: a COVID-19 reflection on envisioning the future of medical education.

The required adjustments precipitated by the coronavirus disease 2019 crisis have been challenging, but also represent a critical opportunity for the evolution and potential disruptive and constructive change of medical education. Given that the format of medical education is not fixed, but malleable and in fact must be adaptable to societal needs through ongoing reflexivity, we find ourselves in a potentially transformative learning phase for the field. An Association for Medical Education in Europe ASPIRE Academy group of 18 medical educators from seven countries was formed to consider this opportunity, and identified critical questions for collective reflection on current medical education practices and assumptions, with the attendant challenge to envision the future of medical education. This was achieved through online discussion as well as asynchronous collective reflections by group members. Four major themes and related conclusions arose from this conversation: Why we teach: the humanitarian mission of medicine should be reinforced; what we teach: disaster management, social accountability and embracing an environment of complexity and uncertainty should be the core; how we teach: open pathways to lean medical education and learning by developing learners embedded in a community context; and whom we teach: those willing to take professional responsibility. These collective reflections provide neither fully matured digests of the challenges of our field, nor comprehensive solutions; rather they are offered as a starting point for medical schools to consider as we seek to harness the learning opportunities stimulated by the pandemic.

Correction: Scientific quality of COVID-19 and SARS CoV-2 publications in the highest impact medical journals during the early phase of the pandemic: A case control study.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0241826.].

Scientific quality of COVID-19 and SARS CoV-2 publications in the highest impact medical journals during the early phase of the pandemic: A case control study.

BACKGROUND: A debate about the scientific quality of COVID-19 themed research has emerged. We explored whether the quality of evidence of COVID-19 publications is lower when compared to nonCOVID-19 publications in the three highest ranked scientific medical journals. METHODS: We searched the PubMed Database from March 12 to April 12, 2020 and identified 559 publications in the New England Journal of Medicine, the Journal of the American Medical Association, and The Lancet which were divided into COVID-19 (cases, n = 204) and nonCOVID-19 (controls, n = 355) associated content. After exclusion of secondary, unauthored, response letters and non-matching article types, 155 COVID-19 publications (including 13 original articles) and 130 nonCOVID-19 publications (including 52 original articles) were included in the comparative analysis. The hierarchical level of evidence was determined for each publication included and compared between cases and controls as the main outcome. A quantitative scoring of quality was carried out for the subgroup of original articles. The numbers of authors and citation rates were also compared between groups. RESULTS: The 130 nonCOVID-19 publications were associated with higher levels of evidence on the level of evidence pyramid, with a strong association measure (Cramer's V: 0.452, P <0.001). The 155 COVID-19 publications were 186-fold more likely to be of lower evidence (95% confidence interval [CI] for odds ratio, 7.0-47; P <0.001). The quantitative quality score (maximum possible score, 28) was significantly different in favor of nonCOVID-19 (mean difference, 11.1; 95% CI, 8.5-13.7; P <0.001). There was a significant difference in the early citation rate of the original articles that favored the COVID-19 original articles (median [interquartile range], 45 [30-244] vs. 2 [1-4] citations; P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the quality of COVID-19 publications in the three highest ranked scientific medical journals is below the quality average of these journals. These findings need to be verified at a later stage of the pandemic.