Transpulmonary pressure measurements and lung mechanics in patients with early ARDS and SARS-CoV-2

The depth of neuromuscular blockade is not related to chest wall elastance and respiratory mechanics in moderate to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. A prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Data concerning the depth of neuromuscular blockade (NMB) required for effective relaxation of the respiratory muscles in ARDS are scarce. We hypothesised that complete versus partial NMB can modify respiratory mechanics.

METHOD

Prospective study to compare the respiratory mechanics of ARDS patients according to the NMB depth. Each patient was analysed at two times: deep NMB (facial train of four count (TOFC) = 0) and intermediate NMB (TOFC >0). The primary endpoint was the comparison of chest wall elastance (ELCW) according to the NMB level.

RESULTS

33 ARDS patients were analysed. There was no statistical difference between the ELCW at TOFC = 0 compared to TOFC >0: 7 cmH2O/l [5.7-9.5] versus 7 cmH2O/l [5.3-10.8] (p = 0.36). The depth of NMB did not modify the expiratory nor inspiratory oesophageal pressure (Pesexp = 8 cmH2O [5-9.5] at TOFC = 0 versus 7 cmH2O [5-10] at TOFC >0; (p = 0.16) and Pesinsp = 10 cmH2O [8.2-13] at TOFC = 0 versus 10 cmH2O [8-13] at TOFC >0; (p = 0.12)).

CONCLUSION

In ARDS, the relaxation of the respiratory muscles seems to be independent of the NMB level.

Distribution of Aeration and Pulmonary Blood Volume in Healthy, ARDS and COVID-19 Lungs: A Dual-Energy Computed Tomography Retrospective Cohort Study

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES

Few reports have studied lung aeration and perfusion in normal lungs, COVID-19, and ARDS from other causes (NC-ARDS) using dual-energy computed tomography pulmonary angiograms (DE-CTPA). To describe lung aeration and blood-volume distribution using DE-CTPAs of patients with NC-ARDS, COVID-19, and controls with a normal DE-CTPA ("healthy lungs"). We hypothesized that each of these conditions has unique ranges of aeration and pulmonary blood volumes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective, single-center study of DE-CTPAs included patients with COVID-19, NC-ARDS (Berlin criteria), and controls. Patients with macroscopic pulmonary embolisms were excluded. The outcomes studied were the (1) lung blood-volume in areas with different aeration levels (normal, ground glass opacities [GGO], consolidated lung) and (2) aeration/blood-volume ratios.

RESULTS

Included were 20 patients with COVID-19 (10 milds, 10 moderate-severe), six with NC-ARDS, and 12 healthy-controls. Lung aeration was lowest in patients with severe COVID-19 24% (IQR13%-31%) followed by those with NC-ARDS 40%(IQR21%-46%). Blood-volume in GGO was lowest in patients with COVID-19 [moderate-severe:-28.6 (IQR-33.1-23.2); mild: -30.1 (IQR-33.3-23.4)] and highest in normally aerated areas in NC-ARDS -37.4 (IQR-52.5-30.2-) and moderate-severe COVID-19 -33.5(IQR-44.2-28.5). The median aeration/blood-volume ratio was lowest in severe COVID-19 but some values overlapped with those observed among patients with NC-ARDS.

CONCLUSION

Severe COVID-19 disease is associated with low total aerated lung volume and blood-volume in areas with GGO and overall aeration/blood volume ratios, and with high blood volume in normal lung areas. In this hypothesis-generating study, these findings were most pronounced in severe COVID disease. Larger studies are needed to confirm these preliminary findings.

Pathophysiology of Hypoxemia in COVID-19 Lung Disease

As the pandemic has progressed, our understanding of hypoxemia in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lung disease has become more nuanced, although much remains to be understood. In this article, we review ventilation-perfusion mismatching in COVID-19 and the evidence to support various biologic theories offered in explanation. In addition, the relationship between hypoxemia and other features of severe COVID-19 lung disease such as respiratory symptoms, radiographic abnormalities, and pulmonary mechanics is explored. Recognizing and understanding hypoxemia in COVID-19 lung disease remains essential for risk stratification, prognostication, and choice of appropriate treatments in severe COVID-19.

Reverse triggering neural network and rules-based automated detection in acute respiratory distress syndrome

PURPOSE

Dyssynchrony may cause lung injury and is associated with worse outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients. Reverse triggering (RT) is a common type of dyssynchrony presenting with several phenotypes which may directly cause lung injury and be difficult to identify. Due to these challenges, automated software to assist in identification is needed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a prospective observational study using a training set of 15 patients and a validation dataset of 13 patients. RT events were manually identified and compared with "rules-based" programs (with and without esophageal manometry and reverse triggering with breath stacking), and were used to train a neural network artificial intelligence (AI) program. RT phenotypes were identified using previously defined rules. Performance of the programs was compared via sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and F1 score.

RESULTS

33,244 breaths were manually analyzed, with 8718 manually identified as reverse-triggers. The rules-based and AI programs yielded excellent specificity (>95% in all programs) and F1 score (>75% in all programs). RT with breath stacking (24.4%) and mid-cycle RT (37.8%) were the most common phenotypes.

CONCLUSIONS

Automated detection of RT demonstrated good performance, with the potential application of these programs for research and clinical care.

Mechanical power and 30-day mortality in mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients with and without Coronavirus Disease-2019: a hospital registry study

BACKGROUND

Previous studies linked a high intensity of ventilation, measured as mechanical power, to mortality in patients suffering from "classic" ARDS. By contrast, mechanically ventilated patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 may present with intact pulmonary mechanics while undergoing mechanical ventilation for longer periods of time. We investigated whether an association between higher mechanical power and mortality is modified by a diagnosis of COVID-19.

METHODS

This retrospective study included critically ill, adult patients who were mechanically ventilated for at least 24 h between March 2020 and December 2021 at a tertiary healthcare facility in Boston, Massachusetts. The primary exposure was median mechanical power during the first 24 h of mechanical ventilation, calculated using a previously validated formula. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. As co-primary analysis, we investigated whether a diagnosis of COVID-19 modified the primary association. We further investigated the association between mechanical power and days being alive and ventilator free and effect modification of this by a diagnosis of COVID-19. Multivariable logistic regression, effect modification and negative binomial regression analyses adjusted for baseline patient characteristics, severity of disease and in-hospital factors, were applied.

RESULTS

1,737 mechanically ventilated patients were included, 411 (23.7%) suffered from COVID-19. 509 (29.3%) died within 30 days. The median mechanical power during the first 24 h of ventilation was 19.3 [14.6-24.0] J/min in patients with and 13.2 [10.2-18.0] J/min in patients without COVID-19. A higher mechanical power was associated with 30-day mortality (OR_adj 1.26 per 1-SD, 7.1J/min increase; 95% CI 1.09-1.46; p = 0.002). Effect modification and interaction analysis did not support that this association was modified by a diagnosis of COVID-19 (95% CI, 0.81-1.38; p-for-interaction = 0.68). A higher mechanical power was associated with a lower number of days alive and ventilator free until day 28 (IRR_adj 0.83 per 7.1 J/min increase; 95% CI 0.75-0.91; p < 0.001, adjusted risk difference - 2.7 days per 7.1J/min increase; 95% CI - 4.1 to - 1.3).

CONCLUSION

A higher mechanical power is associated with elevated 30-day mortality. While patients with COVID-19 received mechanical ventilation with higher mechanical power, this association was independent of a concomitant diagnosis of COVID-19.

Intraoperative Ventilator Management of the Critically Ill Patient

Strategies for the intraoperative ventilator management of the critically ill patient focus on parameters used for lung protective ventilation with acute respiratory distress syndrome, preventing or limiting the deleterious effects of mechanical ventilation, and optimizing anesthetic and surgical conditions to limit postoperative pulmonary complications for patients at risk. Patient conditions such as obesity, sepsis, the need for laparoscopic surgery, or one-lung ventilation may benefit from intraoperative lung protective ventilation strategies. Anesthesiologists can use risk evaluation and prediction tools, monitor advanced physiologic targets, and incorporate new innovative monitoring techniques to develop an individualized approach for patients.

Respiratory system mechanics, gas exchange, and outcomes in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The association of respiratory mechanics, particularly respiratory system static compliance (C_RS), with severity of hypoxaemia in patients with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has been widely debated, with some studies reporting distinct ARDS phenotypes based on C_RS. Ascertaining whether such phenotypes exist is important, because they might indicate the need for ventilation strategies that differ from those used in patients with ARDS due to other causes. In a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies published between Dec 1, 2019, and March 14, 2022, we evaluated respiratory system mechanics, ventilator parameters, gas exchange parameters, and clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. Among 11 356 patients in 37 studies, mean reported C_RS, measured close to the time of endotracheal intubation, was 35·8 mL/cm H₂O (95% CI 33·9-37·8; I²=96·9%, τ²=32·6). Pooled mean C_RS was normally distributed. Increasing ARDS severity (assessed by PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio as mild, moderate, or severe) was associated with decreasing C_RS. We found no evidence for distinct C_RS-based clinical phenotypes in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS, and we therefore conclude that no change in conventional lung-protective ventilation strategies is warranted. Future studies should explore the personalisation of mechanical ventilation strategies according to factors including respiratory system mechanics and haemodynamic status in patients with ARDS.

Advanced respiratory monitoring in mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

To summarize the current knowledge about the application of advanced monitoring techniques in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

RECENT FINDINGS

Due to the heterogeneity between patients, management of COVID-19 requires daily monitoring of and/or aeration and inspiratory effort. Electrical impedance tomography can be used to optimize positive end-expiratory pressure, monitor the response to changes in treatment or body position and assess pulmonary perfusion and ventilation/perfusion matching. Lung ultrasound is more readily available and can be used to measure and monitor recruitment, provide an indication of diaphragm function and pulmonary perfusion disturbances. Esophageal pressure measurements enable the calculation of the transpulmonary pressure and inspiratory effort in order to prevent excessive stress on the lung. While esophageal pressure measurements are the golden standard in determining inspiratory effort, alternatives like P0.1, negative pressure swing during a single airway occlusion and change in central venous pressure are more readily available and capable of diagnosing extreme inspiratory efforts.

SUMMARY

Although there is little data on the effectiveness of advanced monitoring techniques in COVID-19, regular monitoring should be a central part of the management of COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (C-ARDS).

Post‑treatment with propofol inhibits inflammatory response in LPS‑induced alveolar type II epithelial cells

Over-inflammation and severe lung injury are major causes of morbidity and mortality in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). With the COVID-19 pandemic, an increasing number of patients with preexisting lung injury and inflammation are undergoing surgery or artificial ventilation under sedation in intensive care units, where 2,6-diisopropylphenol (propofol) is a commonly used drug for sedation. The aim of the present study was to investigate whether post-inflammation treatment with propofol protects epithelial type II cells against inflammation in an in vitro model of inflammation. The A549 cell line, characterised as epithelial type II cells, were exposed to lipopolysaccharide (LPS) for 2 h and subsequently treated with different concentrations of propofol (0, 10, 25 or 50 µM) for 3 h. Western blot and reverse transcription-quantitative PCR analyses were used to detect the protein and mRNA expression levels, respectively, of CD14 and Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4). Immunofluorescence staining was used to detect the in situ CD14 and TLR4 expression in epithelial type II cells. Tumor necrosis factor (TNF)-α production was also examined using ELISA. LPS significantly increased the expression of CD14 and TLR4, as well as the secretion of TNF-α. Post-treatment with 25 and 50 µM propofol of the LPS-treated cells significantly decreased CD14 and TLR4 expression, as well as TNF-α secretion, compared with the cells treated with LPS only, indicating that post-treatment with propofol alleviated inflammation and this effect was dose-dependent. The present study suggested that treatment with propofol after LPS administration has a protective effect on epithelial type II cells.

Respiratory system compliance at the same PEEP level is similar in COVID and non-COVID ARDS

BACKGROUND

The comparison of respiratory system compliance (Crs) between COVID and non-COVID ARDS patients has been the object of debate, but few studies have evaluated it when considering applied positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP), which is one of the known determinants of Crs itself. The aim of this study was to compare Crs taking into account the applied PEEP.

METHODS

Two cohorts of patients were created: those with COVID-ARDS and those with non-COVID ARDS. In the whole sample the association between Crs and type of ARDS at different PEEP levels was adjusted for anthropometric and clinical variables. As secondary analyses, patients were matched for predicted functional residual capacity and the same association was assessed. Moreover, the association between Crs and type of ARDS was reassessed at predefined PEEP level of 0, 5, 10, and 15 cmH2O with a propensity score-weighted linear model.

RESULTS

367 patients were included in the study, 276 patients with COVID-ARDS and 91 with non-COVID ARDS. The association between Crs and type of ARDS was not significant in both the complete cohorts (p = 0.17) and in the matched cohorts (p = 0.92). This was true also for the propensity score weighted association at PEEP 5, 10 and 15 cmH2O, while it was statistically significant at PEEP 0 (with a median difference of 3 ml/cmH2O, which in our opinion is not clinically significant).

CONCLUSIONS

The compliance of the respiratory system is similar between COVID ARDS and non-COVID ARDS when calculated at the same PEEP level and while taking into account patients' anthropometric characteristics.

2020 Year in Review: Mechanical Ventilation During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) represents the greatest medical crisis encountered in the young history of critical care and respiratory care. During the early months of the pandemic, when little was known about the virus, the acute hypoxemic respiratory failure it caused did not appear to fit conveniently or consistently into our classification of ARDS. This not only re-ignited a half-century's long simmering debate over taxonomy, but also fueled similar debates over how PEEP and lung-protective ventilation should be titrated, as well as the appropriate role of noninvasive ventilation in ARDS. COVID-19 ignited other debates on emerging concepts such as ARDS phenotypes and patient self-inflicted lung injury from vigorous spontaneous breathing. Over a year later, these early perplexities have receded into the background without having been reviewed or resolved. With a full year of evidence having been published, this narrative review systematically analyzes whether COVID-19-associated respiratory failure is essentially ARDS, with perhaps a somewhat different course of presentation. This includes a review of the severity of hypoxemia and derangements in pulmonary mechanics, PEEP requirements, recruitment potential, ability to achieve lung-protective ventilation goals, duration of mechanical ventilation, associated mortality, and response to noninvasive ventilation. This paper also reviews the concepts of ARDS phenotypes and patient self-inflicted lung injury as these are crucial to understanding the contentious debate over the nature and management of COVID-19.