Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 3 de 3
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
2.
Respir Care ; 68(10): 1340-1346, 2023 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37280079

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia from COVID-19 that results in ARDS may require invasive mechanical ventilation. This retrospective study assessed the characteristics and outcomes of subjects with COVID-19-associated ARDS versus ARDS (non-COVID) during the first 6 months of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. The primary objective was to determine whether mechanical ventilation duration differed between these cohorts and identify other potential contributory factors. METHODS: We retrospectively identified 73 subjects admitted between March 1 and August 12, 2020, with either COVID-19-associated ARDS (37) or ARDS (36) who were managed with the lung protective ventilator protocol and required >48 h of mechanical ventilation. Exclusion criteria were the following: <18 years old or the patient required tracheostomy or interfacility transfer. Demographic and baseline clinical data were collected at ARDS onset (ARDS day 0), with subsequent data collected on ARDS days 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 14, and 21. Comparisons were made by using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test (continuous variables) and chi-square test (categorical variables) stratified by COVID-19 status. A Cox proportional hazards model assessed the cause-specific hazard ratio for extubation. RESULTS: The median (interquartile range) mechanical ventilation duration among the subjects who survived to extubation was longer in those with COVID-19-ARDS versus the subjects with non-COVID ARDS: 10 (6-20) d versus 4 (2-8) d; P < .001. Hospital mortality was not different between the two groups (22% vs 39%; P = .11). The competing risks Cox proportional hazard analysis (fit among the total sample, including non-survivors) revealed that improved compliance of the respiratory system and oxygenation were associated with the probability of extubation. Oxygenation improved at a lower rate in the subjects with COVID-19-associated ARDS than in the subjects with non-COVID ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: Mechanical ventilation duration was longer in subjects with COVID-19-associated ARDS compared with the subjects with non-COVID ARDS, which may be explained by a lower rate of improvement in oxygenation status.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Humans , Adolescent , COVID-19/complications , Retrospective Studies , Airway Extubation , Pandemics , Respiration, Artificial/methods , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/etiology , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy
3.
Respir Care ; 66(3): 510-530, 2021 Mar.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33051254

ABSTRACT

Recruitment maneuvers in ARDS are used to improve oxygenation and lung mechanics by applying high airway pressures to reopen collapsed or obstructed peripheral airways and alveoli. In the early 1990s, recruitment maneuvers became a central feature of a variant form of lung-protective ventilation known as open-lung ventilation. This strategy is based on the belief that repetitive opening and closing of distal airspaces induces shear injury and therefore contributes both to ventilator-induced lung injury and ARDS-associated mortality. However, the largest multi-center randomized controlled trial of open-lung ventilation in moderate to severe ARDS reported that recruitment maneuver plateau pressures of 50-60 cm H2O were associated with significantly higher mortality compared to traditional lung-protective ventilation. Despite being based on well conducted preclinical and clinical recruitment maneuver studies, the higher mortality associated with the open-lung ventilation strategy requires re-examining the assumptions and conclusions drawn from those previous studies. This narrative review examines the evidence used to design recruitment maneuver strategies. We also review the radiologic, rheologic, and histopathologic evidence regarding the nature of lung injury and the phenomena of recruitment and de-recruitment as it informs our perceptions of recruitment potential in ARDS. Major lung-protective ventilation clinical trial data and other clinical data are also examined to assess the practical necessity of recruitment maneuvers in ARDS and whether a subset of cases might benefit from pursuing recruitment maneuver therapy. Finally, a less a radical approach to recruitment maneuvers is offered that might achieve the goals of recruitment maneuvers with less risk of harm.


Subject(s)
Acute Lung Injury , Respiratory Distress Syndrome , Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury , Humans , Positive-Pressure Respiration , Respiration, Artificial , Respiratory Distress Syndrome/therapy , Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury/etiology , Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury/prevention & control
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...