Pulmonary Angiopathy in Severe COVID-19: Physiological Conclusions Derived from Ventilatory Ratio?

Physiologic Comparison of Airway Pressure Release Ventilation and Low Tidal Volume Ventilation in ARDS: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

The physiologic effects of different ventilation strategies on patients with ARDS)need to be understood better.

RESEARCH QUESTION

In patients with ARDS receiving controlled mandatory ventilation, does airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) improve lung ventilation/perfusion (V˙/Q˙) matching and ventilation homogeneity compared with low tidal volume (LTV) ventilation?

STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS

This study was a single-center randomized controlled trial. Patients with moderate to severe ARDS were ventilated randomly with APRV or LTV ventilation. Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) was used to assess lung ventilation and perfusion. EIT-based data and clinical variables related to respiratory and hemodynamic conditions were collected shortly before randomization (0 hours) and at 12 and 24 hours after randomization.

RESULTS

A total of 40 patients were included and randomized to the APRV or LTV ventilation group (20 per group). During the 24-hour trial period, patients receiving APRV exhibited significantly increased dorsal ventilation (difference value [24 hours minus 0 hours]: median, 10.82% [interquartile range (IQR), 2.62%-13.74%] vs 0.12% [IQR, -2.81% to 4.76%]; P = .017), decreased dorsal shunt (median, -4.67% [IQR, -6.83% to 0.59%] vs 1.73% [IQR, -0.95% to 5.53%]; P = .008), and increased dorsal V˙/Q˙ matching (median, 4.13% [IQR, -0.26% to 10.47%] vs -3.29% [IQR, -5.05% to 2.81%]; P = .026) than those receiving LTV ventilation. No difference in ventral dead space was observed between study groups (P = .903). Additionally, 2 indicators of ventilation distribution heterogeneity, global inhomogeneity index and center of ventilation, significantly decreased and significantly increased, respectively, in the APRV group compared with the LTV ventilation group. Patients receiving APRV showed significantly higher Pao2 to Fio2 ratio, higher respiratory system static compliance (Crs) and lower Paco2 than those receiving LTV ventilation at 24 hours. The cardiac output was comparable in both groups.

INTERPRETATION

APRV, as compared with LTV ventilation, could recruit dorsal region, reduce dorsal shunt, increase dorsal V˙/Q˙ matching, and improve ventilation homogeneity of the lungs, leading to better gas exchange and Crs in patients with moderate to severe ARDS.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRY

ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT05767125; URL: www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov.

The evolution of the ventilatory ratio is a prognostic factor in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients

Background

Mortality due to COVID-19 is high, especially in patients requiring mechanical ventilation. The purpose of the study is to investigate associations between mortality and variables measured during the first three days of mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19 intubated at ICU admission.

Methods

Multicenter, observational, cohort study includes consecutive patients with COVID-19 admitted to 44 Spanish ICUs between February 25 and July 31, 2020, who required intubation at ICU admission and mechanical ventilation for more than three days. We collected demographic and clinical data prior to admission; information about clinical evolution at days 1 and 3 of mechanical ventilation; and outcomes.

Results

Of the 2,095 patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU, 1,118 (53.3%) were intubated at day 1 and remained under mechanical ventilation at day three. From days 1 to 3, PaO₂/FiO₂ increased from 115.6 [80.0–171.2] to 180.0 [135.4–227.9] mmHg and the ventilatory ratio from 1.73 [1.33–2.25] to 1.96 [1.61–2.40]. In-hospital mortality was 38.7%. A higher increase between ICU admission and day 3 in the ventilatory ratio (OR 1.04 [CI 1.01–1.07], p = 0.030) and creatinine levels (OR 1.05 [CI 1.01–1.09], p = 0.005) and a lower increase in platelet counts (OR 0.96 [CI 0.93–1.00], p = 0.037) were independently associated with a higher risk of death. No association between mortality and the PaO₂/FiO₂ variation was observed (OR 0.99 [CI 0.95 to 1.02], p = 0.47).

Conclusions

Higher ventilatory ratio and its increase at day 3 is associated with mortality in patients with COVID-19 receiving mechanical ventilation at ICU admission. No association was found in the PaO₂/FiO₂ variation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03727-x.

COVID-19 is a systemic vascular hemopathy: insight for mechanistic and clinical aspects

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is presenting as a systemic disease associated with vascular inflammation and endothelial injury. Severe forms of SARS-CoV-2 infection induce acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and there is still an ongoing debate on whether COVID-19 ARDS and its perfusion defect differs from ARDS induced by other causes. Beside pro-inflammatory cytokines (such as interleukin-1 β [IL-1β] or IL-6), several main pathological phenomena have been seen because of endothelial cell (EC) dysfunction: hypercoagulation reflected by fibrin degradation products called D-dimers, micro- and macrothrombosis and pathological angiogenesis. Direct endothelial infection by SARS-CoV-2 is not likely to occur and ACE-2 expression by EC is a matter of debate. Indeed, endothelial damage reported in severely ill patients with COVID-19 could be more likely secondary to infection of neighboring cells and/or a consequence of inflammation. Endotheliopathy could give rise to hypercoagulation by alteration in the levels of different factors such as von Willebrand factor. Other than thrombotic events, pathological angiogenesis is among the recent findings. Overexpression of different proangiogenic factors such as vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), basic fibroblast growth factor (FGF-2) or placental growth factors (PlGF) have been found in plasma or lung biopsies of COVID-19 patients. Finally, SARS-CoV-2 infection induces an emergency myelopoiesis associated to deregulated immunity and mobilization of endothelial progenitor cells, leading to features of acquired hematological malignancies or cardiovascular disease, which are discussed in this review. Altogether, this review will try to elucidate the pathophysiology of thrombotic complications, pathological angiogenesis and EC dysfunction, allowing better insight in new targets and antithrombotic protocols to better address vascular system dysfunction. Since treating SARS-CoV-2 infection and its potential long-term effects involves targeting the vascular compartment and/or mobilization of immature immune cells, we propose to define COVID-19 and its complications as a systemic vascular acquired hemopathy.