Responsiveness of Inhaled Epoprostenol in Respiratory Failure due to COVID-19

A Narrative Review on the Administration of Inhaled Prostaglandins in Critically Ill Adult Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

OBJECTIVE

To describe the effect of inhaled prostaglandins on both oxygenation and mortality in critically ill patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), with a focus on safety and efficacy in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated ARDS and non-COVID-19 ARDS.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search of MEDLINE was performed using the following search terms: inhaled prostaglandins, inhaled epoprostenol, inhaled nitric oxide, ARDS, critically ill. All abstracts were reviewed.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION

Relevant English-language reports and studies conducted in humans between 1980 and June 2023 were considered.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Data regarding inhaled prostaglandins and their effect on oxygenation are limited but show a benefit in patients who respond to therapy, and data pertaining to their effect on mortality is scarce. Concerns exist regarding the formulation of inhaled epoprostenol (iEPO) utilized in addition to modes of medication delivery; however, the limited data surrounding their use have shown a reasonable safety profile. Other avenues and beneficial effects may exist with inhaled prostaglandins, such as use in COVID-19-associated ARDS or non-COVID-19 ARDS patients undergoing noninvasive mechanical ventilation or during patient transport.

RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE

The use of inhaled prostaglandins can be considered in critically ill patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS or non-COVID-19 ARDS who are experiencing difficulties with oxygenation refractory to nonpharmacologic strategies.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of iEPO and other inhaled prostaglandins requires further investigation to fully elucidate their effects on clinical outcomes, but it appears these medications may have a potential benefit in COVID-19-associated ARDS and non-COVID-19 ARDS patients with refractory hypoxemia but with little effect on mortality.

Alveolar Hyperoxia and Exacerbation of Lung Injury in Critically Ill SARS-CoV-2 Pneumonia

Acute hypoxic respiratory failure (AHRF) is a prominent feature of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) critical illness. The severity of gas exchange impairment correlates with worse prognosis, and AHRF requiring mechanical ventilation is associated with substantial mortality. Persistent impaired gas exchange leading to hypoxemia often warrants the prolonged administration of a high fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO2). In SARS-CoV-2 AHRF, systemic vasculopathy with lung microthrombosis and microangiopathy further exacerbates poor gas exchange due to alveolar inflammation and oedema. Capillary congestion with microthrombosis is a common autopsy finding in the lungs of patients who die with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome. The need for a high FiO2 to normalise arterial hypoxemia and tissue hypoxia can result in alveolar hyperoxia. This in turn can lead to local alveolar oxidative stress with associated inflammation, alveolar epithelial cell apoptosis, surfactant dysfunction, pulmonary vascular abnormalities, resorption atelectasis, and impairment of innate immunity predisposing to secondary bacterial infections. While oxygen is a life-saving treatment, alveolar hyperoxia may exacerbate pre-existing lung injury. In this review, we provide a summary of oxygen toxicity mechanisms, evaluating the consequences of alveolar hyperoxia in COVID-19 and propose established and potential exploratory treatment pathways to minimise alveolar hyperoxia.

Multidrug Aerosol Delivery During Mechanical Ventilation

Background: In the critically ill, pulmonary vasodilators are often provided off label to intubated patients using continuous nebulization. If additional aerosol therapies such as bronchodilators or antibiotics are needed, vasodilator therapy may be interrupted. This study assesses aerosol systems designed for simultaneous delivery of two aerosols using continuous nebulization and bolus injection without interruption or circuit disconnection. Methods: One i-AIRE dual-port breath-enhanced jet nebulizer (BEJN) or two Aerogen® Solo vibrating mesh nebulizers (VMNs) were installed on the dry side of the humidifier. VMN were stacked; one for infusion and the second for bolus drug delivery. The BEJN was powered by air at 3.5 L/min, 50 psig. Radiolabeled saline was infused at 5 and 10 mL/h with radiolabeled 3 and 6 mL bolus injections at 30 and 120 minutes, respectively. Two adult breathing patterns (duty cycle 0.13 and 0.34) were tested with an infusion time of 4 hours. Inhaled mass (IM) expressed as % of initial syringe activity (IM%/min) was monitored in real time with a ratemeter. All delivered radioaerosol was collected on a filter at the airway opening. Transients in aerosol delivery were measured by calibrated ratemeter. Results: IM%/h during continuous infusion was linear and predictable, mean ± standard deviation (SD): 2.12 ± 1.45%/h, 2.47 ± 0.863%/h for BEJN and VMN, respectively. BEJN functioned without incident. VMN continuous aerosol delivery stopped spontaneously in 3 of 8 runs (38%); bolus delivery stopped spontaneously in 3 of 16 runs (19%). Tapping restarted VMN function during continuous and bolus delivery runs. Bolus delivery IM% (mean ± SD): 20.90% ± 7.01%, 30.40% ± 11.10% for BEJN and VMN, respectively. Conclusion: Simultaneous continuous and bolus nebulization without circuit disconnection is possible for both jet and mesh technology. Monitoring of VMN devices may be necessary in case of spontaneous interruption of nebulization.

Inhaled Prostacyclins for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Studies evaluating inhaled prostacyclins for the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) have produced inconsistent results regarding their effect on oxygenation. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the change in the Pao₂/Fio₂ ratio after administration of an inhaled prostacyclin in patients with ARDS.

DATA SOURCES

We searched Ovid Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane, Scopus, and Web of Science.

STUDY SELECTION

We included abstracts and trials evaluating administration of inhaled prostacyclins in patients with ARDS.

DATA EXTRACTION

Change in the Pao₂/Fio₂ ratio, Pao₂, and mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP) were extracted from included studies. Evidence certainty and risk of bias were evaluated using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation and the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

DATA SYNTHESIS

We included 23 studies (1,658 patients) from 6,339 abstracts identified by our search strategy. The use of inhaled prostacyclins improved oxygenation by increasing the Pao₂/Fio₂ ratio from baseline (mean difference [MD], 40.35; 95% CI, 26.14-54.56; p < 0.00001; I² = 95%; very low quality evidence). Of the eight studies to evaluate change in Pao₂, inhaled prostacyclins also increased Pao₂ from baseline (MD, 12.68; 95% CI, 2.89-22.48 mm Hg; p = 0.01; I² = 96%; very low quality evidence). Only three studies evaluated change in mPAP, but inhaled prostacyclins were found to improve mPAP from baseline (MD, -3.67; 95% CI, -5.04 to -2.31 mm Hg; p < 0.00001; I² = 68%; very low quality evidence).

CONCLUSIONS

In patients with ARDS, use of inhaled prostacyclins improves oxygenation and reduces pulmonary artery pressures. Overall data are limited and there was high risk of bias and heterogeneity among included studies. Future studies evaluating inhaled prostacyclins for ARDS should evaluate their role in ARDS subphenotypes, including cardiopulmonary ARDS.

Management of COVID-19 in Patients with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension

In this review, we discuss the evidence regarding the course and management of COVID-19 in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), the challenges in PAH management during the pandemic and, lastly, the long-term complications of COVID-19 in relation to pulmonary vascular disease. The inherent PAH disease characteristics, as well as age, comorbidities, and the patient's functional status act synergistically to define the prognosis of COVID-19 in patients with PAH. Management of COVID-19 should follow the general guidelines, while PAH-targeted therapies should be continued. The pandemic has caused a shift toward telemedicine in the chronic care of patients with PAH. Whether COVID-19 could predispose to the development of chronic pulmonary hypertension is a subject of future investigation.

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and the Use of Inhaled Pulmonary Vasodilators in the COVID-19 Era: A Narrative Review

The Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic of 2019 has resulted in significant morbidity and mortality, especially from severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). As of September 2022, more than 6.5 million patients have died globally, and up to 5% required intensive care unit treatment. COVID-19-associated ARDS (CARDS) differs from the typical ARDS due to distinct pathology involving the pulmonary vasculature endothelium, resulting in diffuse thrombi in the pulmonary circulation and impaired gas exchange. The National Institute of Health and the Society of Critical Care Medicine recommend lung-protective ventilation, prone ventilation, and neuromuscular blockade as needed. Further, a trial of pulmonary vasodilators is suggested for those who develop refractory hypoxemia. A review of the prior literature on inhaled pulmonary vasodilators in ARDS suggests only a transient improvement in oxygenation, with no mortality benefit. This narrative review aims to highlight the fundamental principles in ARDS management, delineate the fundamental differences between CARDS and ARDS, and describe the comprehensive use of inhaled pulmonary vasodilators. In addition, with the differing pathophysiology of CARDS from the typical ARDS, we sought to evaluate the current evidence regarding the use of inhaled pulmonary vasodilators in CARDS.

Lessons learned in mechanical ventilation/oxygen support in COVID19

The clinical spectrum of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 infection ranges from asymptomatic infection or mild respiratory symptoms to pneumonia, with severe cases leading to acute respiratory distress syndrome with multiorgan involvement. The clinical management of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) changed over the course of the pandemic, being adjusted as more evidence became available. This article will review how the ventilatory management of COVID-19 ARDS evolved and will conclude with current evidence-based recommendations.

A Comparison of Inhaled Epoprostenol in Patients With Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and COVID-19-Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Introduction

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS) are both characterized by non-cardiogenic pulmonary edema and severe hypoxemia that leads to a high percentage of patients suffering in-hospital mortality. Mechanistically, inhaled epoprostenol (iEPO) has shown a role in the treatment of ARDS and CARDS but little data are available directly comparing the two disease processes. Due to the lack of evidence of iEPO in ARDS and CARDS, the authors sought to compare the pulmonary effects of iEPO for mechanically ventilated patients with CARDS against a case match control of those with ARDS.

Methods

A retrospective cohort of all patients receiving iEPO between January 1, 2020, and February 22, 2022, was reviewed. Patients with ARDS were case-matched in a 2:1 allocation ratio of CARDS to ARDS by the number of medical comorbidities and age +/- 5 years. Clinical data collected included patient demographics, laboratory values, ventilator settings, length of hospitalization, and 28-day mortality. Comparisons of the effectiveness of iEPO between ARDS and CARDS were conducted using the chi-squared statistic for categorical variables and the Mann-Whitney statistic for continuous variables.

Results

A total of 72 patients were included in the final analysis, with 24 having ARDS and 48 CARDS. The number of medical comorbidities was no different for patients with ARDS or CARDs (p = 0.18), though the frequency of patients diagnosed with coronary artery disease (p=0.007), congestive heart failure (p=0.003), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (p=0.004), and pulmonary hypertension (p=0.004) did vary between the two groups. A moderate but non-significant difference in pre-iEPO partial pressure of oxygen (PaO₂)/fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂) ratio was noted between the groups (0.74 vs 0.65; p=0.33). Following iEPO treatment, patients with ARDS showed a greater PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio than those with CARDS (0.87 vs 0.70; p=0.02). CARDS patients who received iEPO had a longer length of stay as compared to those with ARDS (17.5 vs 12.5 days; p=0.01). However, no difference was noted in 28-day mortality between the two groups (14 vs 34; p=0.29).

Conclusion

In this small sample from a single community hospital, a statistically significant improvement in the PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio was noted for both those with ARDS and CARDS. However, those with CARDS who were given iEPO had a longer length of stay without a significant difference in mortality as compared to those with traditional ARDS.

Inhaled Pulmonary Vasodilators in COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Introduction: Inhaled pulmonary vasodilators (IPVD) have been previously studied in patients with non-coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The use of IPVD has been shown to improve the partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO₂), reduce fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO₂) requirements, and ultimately increase PaO₂/FiO₂ (P/F) ratios in ARDS patients. However, the role of IPVD in COVID-19 ARDS is still unclear. Therefore, we performed this meta-analysis to evaluate the role of IPVD in COVID-19 patients. Methods: Comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library databases from inception through April 22, 2022 was performed for all published studies that utilized IPVD in COVID-19 ARDS patients. The single arm studies and case series were combined for a 1-arm meta-analysis, and the 2-arm studies were combined for a 2-arm meta-analysis. Primary outcomes for the 1-arm and 2-arm meta-analyzes were change in pre- and post-IPVD P/F ratios and mortality, respectively. Secondary outcomes for the 1-arm meta-analysis were change in pre- and post-IPVD positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and lung compliance, and for the 2-arm meta-analysis the secondary outcomes were need for endotracheal intubation and hospital length of stay (LOS). Results: 13 single arm retrospective studies and 5 case series involving 613 patients were included in the 1-arm meta-analysis. 3 studies involving 640 patients were included in the 2-arm meta-analysis. The pre-IPVD P/F ratios were significantly lower compared to post-IPVD, but there was no significant difference between pre- and post-IPVD PEEP and lung compliance. The mortality rates, need for endotracheal intubation, and hospital LOS were similar between the IPVD and standard therapy groups. Conclusion: Although IPVD may improve oxygenation, our investigation showed no benefits in terms of mortality compared to standard therapy alone. However, randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate our findings.

Nitric oxide versus epoprostenol for refractory hypoxemia in Covid-19

Objective

To compare the efficacy and outcomes with inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) and inhaled epoprostenol (iEPO) in patients with refractory hypoxemia due to COVID-19.

Design

Retrospective Cohort Study.

Setting

Single health system multicenter academic teaching hospitals.

Patients OR subjects

Age group of 18–80 years admitted to the medical ICU.

Interventions

Mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 infection, who received either iNO or iEPO between March 1^st, 2020, and June 30^th, 2020.

Measurements and main results

The primary outcome was the change in the PaO2/FiO2 (P/F) ratio 1 hour after initiation of pulmonary vasodilator therapy. Secondary outcomes include P/F ratios on days 1–3 after initiation, positive response in P/F ratio (increase of at least 20% in PaO2), total days of treatment, rebound hypoxemia (if there was a drop in oxygen saturation after treatment was stopped), ventilator free days (if any patient was extubated), days in ICU, days to extubation, days to tracheostomy, mortality days after intubation, 30-day survival and mortality. 183 patients were excluded, as they received both iNO and iEPO. Of the remaining 103 patients, 62 received iEPO and 41 received iNO. The severity of ARDS was similar in both groups. Change in P/F ratio at one hour was 116 (70.3) with iNO and 107 (57.6) with iEPO (Mean/SD). Twenty-two (53.7%) patients in the iNO group and 25 (40.3%) in the iEPO group were responders to pulmonary vasodilators n(%)(p = 0.152) (more than 20% increase in partial pressure of oxygen, Pao2), and 18 (43.9%) and 31 (50%) patients in the iNO and iEPO group (p = 0.685), respectively, had rebound hypoxemia. Only 7 patients in the cohort achieved ventilator free days (3 in the iEPO group and 4 in iNO group).

Conclusions

We found no significant difference between iNO and iEPO in terms of change in P/F ratio, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU, in-hospital mortality in this cohort of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Larger, prospective studies are necessary to validate these results.

A retrospective review of implementation of an inhaled epoprostenol protocol in the emergency department

INTRODUCTION

Inhaled epoprostenol is a selective pulmonary vasodilator that has shown a potentially broad number of applications in the management of critically ill patients. To date, the vast majority of the literature with regard to efficacy, indications for use, and adverse effects of inhaled epoprostenol is focused on use of this agent in critical care settings, with relatively little literature describing use of inhaled epoprostenol in the Emergency Department. This retrospective review sought to examine instances in which inhaled epoprostenol was administered in the Emergency Department of a tertiary-care, Level I trauma center following implementation of a clinical pathway for administration of this medication for cases of refractory hypoxemia, RV dysfunction, and refractory hypoxemia. Primary outcomes were monitoring for adverse effects (i.e. hypotension), trend in FiO2 requirement over time, and clinical indication for initiation of inhaled epoprostenol.

METHODS

An automated review was performed to query cases in which inhaled epoprostenol had been initiated in the Emergency Department following adoption of the inhaled epoprostenol clinical pathway. Cases were excluded if the medication was initiated in the prehospital setting, ordered but not administered, or administered for a period of <1 h. Vital signs and co-administration of vasopressors were followed before and following epoprostenol administration to assess for change over time. Clinical indication of epoprostenol administration was assessed via manual chart review.

RESULTS

Inhaled epoprostenol was administered in 20 instances, with 15 cases ultimately meeting inclusion criteria. There were no cases of clinically significant hypotension (MAP <65) in any of the cases in which inhaled epoprostenol was administered in the Emergency Department, and mean vasopressor requirement did not increase over time. A majority of patients saw a reduction in FiO2 requirement following administration of inhaled epoprostenol. The most common indication for initiation of inhaled epoprostenol based on manual chart review was pulmonary embolism.

DISCUSSION

In this review of cases in which inhaled epoprostenol was administered following adoption of a clinical pathway for medication administration, there were no cases of hypotension or other adverse effects that appear to be attributable to medication administration. Pulmonary embolism and refractory hypoxemia were the most common noted indications for administration of inhaled epoprostenol. Further research is warranted regarding development of clinical protocols for administration of inhaled pulmonary vasodilators in the Emergency Department setting.

The impact of nebulized epoprostenol and iloprost on hemoglobin oxygen affinity: an ex vivo experiment

Inhalational prostacyclins act as strong vasodilators, potentially improving oxygenation by reducing shunt fraction and ventilation-perfusion mismatch. As prostacyclin receptors are known to be present on human erythrocytes, possible direct effects on hemoglobin oxygen transport were further explored by examining the sole in vitro influence of prostacyclins on hemoglobin oxygen (Hb-O2) affinity. Venous blood samples from 20 healthy volunteers were exposed in vitro to supramaximal doses of epoprostenol, iloprost, and compared with control. By high-throughput measurements, hemoglobin oxygen dissociation curves (ODCs) were derived. Hb-O2 affinity, expressed by P50 and Hill coefficient, was determined and analyzed for three subgroups: males (n = 10), females not taking oral contraceptives (n = 4), and females taking oral contraceptives (n = 6). Epoprostenol significantly decreased P50 in all (males, females without contraceptives, and females taking oral contraceptives) [27.5 (26.4-28.6) mmHg (control) vs. 24.2 (22.7-25.3) mmHg; P < 0.001. median (interquartile range, IQR)] thereby increasing Hb-O2 affinity. Inversely, iloprost only showed significant effects in females taking oral contraceptives where P50 was markedly increased and therefore Hb-O2 affinity decreased [28.4 (27.9-28.9) mmHg (control) vs. 34.4 (32.2-36.0) mmHg; P < 0.001]. Prostacyclin-receptor stimulation and subsequent cAMP-mediated ATP release from erythrocytes are discussed as a possible underlying mechanism for the effect of epoprostenol on Hb-O2 affinity. The reason for the sex hormone-modified iloprost effect remains unclear. Being aware of potentially differing effects on Hb-O2 affinity might help select the right prostacyclin (epoprostenol vs. iloprost) depending on the patient and the underlying disease (e.g., acute respiratory distress syndrome vs. peripheral arterial disease).

Evaluation of aerosolized epoprostenol for hypoxemia in non-intubated patients with coronavirus disease 2019

Objectives

Patients infected with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) frequently present with a febrile illness that may progress to pneumonia and hypoxic respiratory failure. Aerosolized epoprostenol (aEPO) has been evaluated in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome and refractory hypoxemia. A paucity of literature has assessed the impact of aEPO in patients with SARS-CoV-2 receiving oxygen support with high flow nasal cannula (HFNC). The objective of this study was to evaluate whether aEPO added to HFNC prevents intubation and/or prolong time to intubation compared to controls only treated with HFNC, guided by oxygen saturation goals.

Methods

This was a single-center, retrospective study of adult patients infected with coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) and admitted to the medical intensive care unit. A total of 60 patients were included. Thirty patients were included in the treatment, and 30 in the control group, respectively. Among patients included in the treatment group, response to therapy was assessed. The need for mechanical ventilation and hospital mortality between responders vs. non-responders was evaluated.

Results

The primary outcome of mechanical ventilation was not statistically different between groups. Time from HFNC initiation to intubation was significantly prolonged in the treatment group compared to the control group (5.7 days vs. 2.3 days, P = 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference between groups in mortality or length of stay. Patients deemed responders to aEPO had a lower rate of mechanical ventilation (50% vs 88%, P = 0.025) and mortality (21% vs 63%, P = 0.024), compared with non-responders.

Conclusion

The utilization of aEPO in COVID-19 patients treated with HFNC is not associated with a reduction in the rate of mechanical ventilation. Nevertheless, the application of this strategy may prolong the time to invasive mechanical ventilation, without affecting other clinical outcomes.

Predicting Impact of Prone Position on Oxygenation in Mechanically Ventilated Patients with COVID-19

OBJECTIVES

Prone positioning is widely used in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19; however, the specific clinical scenario in which the individual is most poised to benefit is not fully established. In patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure requiring mechanical ventilation, how effective is prone positioning in improving oxygenation and can that response be predicted?

DESIGN

This is a retrospective observational study from two tertiary care centers including consecutive patients mechanically ventilated for COVID-19 from 3/1/2020 - 7/1/2021. The primary outcome is improvement in oxygenation as measured by PaO₂/FiO₂. We describe oxygenation before, during and after prone episodes with a focus on identifying patient, respiratory or ventilator variables that predict prone positioning success.

SETTING

2 Tertiary Care Academic Hospitals.

PATIENTS

125 patients mechanically ventilated for COVID-19 respiratory failure.

INTERVENTIONS

Prone positioning.

MAIN RESULTS

One hundred twenty-five patients underwent prone positioning a total of 309 times for a median duration of 23 hours IQR (14 - 49). On average, PaO₂/FiO₂ improved 19%: from 115 mm Hg (80 - 148) immediately before proning to 137 mm Hg (95 - 197) immediately after returning to the supine position. Prone episodes were more successful if the pre-prone PaO₂/FiO₂ was lower and if the patient was on inhaled epoprostenol (iEpo). For individuals with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) (PaO₂/FiO₂ < 100 prior to prone positioning) and on iEpo, the median improvement in PaO₂/FiO₂ was 27% in both instances.

CONCLUSIONS

Prone positioning in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 is generally associated with sustained improvements in oxygenation, which is made more likely by the concomitant use of iEpo and is more impactful in those who are more severely hypoxemic prior to prone positioning.

Use of inhaled epoprostenol with high flow nasal oxygen in non-intubated patients with severe COVID-19

Purpose

Acute lung injury associated with COVID-19 contributes significantly to its morbidity and mortality. Though invasive mechanical ventilation is sometimes necessary, the use of high flow nasal oxygen may avoid the need for mechanical ventilation in some patients. For patients approaching the limits of high flow nasal oxygen support, addition of inhaled pulmonary vasodilators is becoming more common but little is known about its effects. This is the first descriptive study of a cohort of patients receiving inhaled epoprostenol with high flow nasal oxygen for COVID-19.

Materials and methods

We collected clinical data from the first fifty patients to receive inhaled epoprostenol while on high flow nasal oxygen at our institution. We compared the characteristics of patients who did and did not respond to epoprostenol addition.

Results

The 18 patients that did not stabilize or improve following initiation of inhaled epoprostenol had similar rates of invasive mechanical ventilation as those who improved or stabilized (50% vs 56%). Rates of mortality were not significantly different between the two groups (17% and 31%).

Conclusions

In patients with COVID-19 induced hypoxemic respiratory failure, the use of inhaled epoprostenol with high flow nasal oxygen is feasible, but physiologic signs of response were not related to clinical outcomes.

Evaluation of Continuous Inhaled Epoprostenol in the Treatment of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, Including Patients With SARS-CoV-2 Infection

Background

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) management is primarily supportive. Pulmonary vasodilators, such as inhaled epoprostenol (iEPO), have been shown to improve PaO2:FiO2 (PF) and are used as adjunctive therapy.

Objective

To identify the positive response rate and variables associated with response to iEPO in adults with ARDS. A positive response to iEPO was defined as a 10% improvement in PF within 6 hours.

Methods

This retrospective study included adults with ARDS treated with iEPO. The primary endpoint was the variables associated with a positive response to iEPO. Secondary endpoints were positive response rate and the change in PF and SpO2:FiO2 within 6 hours. Statistical analysis included multivariable regression.

Results

Three hundred thirty-one patients were included. As baseline PF increased, the odds of responding to iEPO decreased (odds ratio [OR], 0.752, 95% CI, 0.69-0.819, p < 0.001). Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-related ARDS (OR 0.478, 95% CI, 0.281-0.814, p = 0.007) was associated with decreased odds of a positive response to iEPO. The total population had a 68.3% positive response rate to iEPO. SARS-CoV-2-related ARDS and non-SARS-CoV-2-related ARDS had a 59.5% and 72.7% positive response rate, respectively. iEPO significantly improved PF (71 vs 95, P < 0.001) in the whole population.

Conclusion and Relevance

iEPO was associated with a positive effect in a majority of moderate-to-severe ARDS patients, including patients with SARS-CoV-2-related ARDS. Lower baseline PF and non-SARS-CoV-2-related ARDS were significantly associated with a positive response to iEPO. The ability to predict which patients will respond to iEPO can facilitate better utilization.

Pulmonary Hypertension and COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a primary respiratory infectious disease, which can result in pulmonary and cardiovascular complications. From its first appearance in the city of Wuhan (China), the infection spread worldwide, leading to its declaration as a pandemic on March 11, 2020. Clinical research on SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2) suggests that the virus may determine changes in the pulmonary hemodynamics through mechanisms of endothelial dysfunction, vascular leak, thrombotic microangiopathy, and venous thromboembolism that are similar to those leading to pulmonary hypertension (PH). Current available studies report echocardiographic signs of PH in approximately 12 to 13% of hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Those with chronic pulmonary obstructive disease, congestive heart failure, pulmonary embolism, and prior PH are at increased risk to develop or worsen PH. Evidence of PH seems to be associated with increased disease severity and poor outcome. Because of the importance of the pulmonary hemodynamics in the pathophysiology of COVID-19, there is growing interest in exploring the potential therapeutical benefits of inhaled vasodilators in patients with COVID-19. Treatment with inhaled nitric oxide and prostacyclin has shown encouraging results through improvement of systemic oxygenation, reduction of systolic pulmonary arterial pressure, and prevention of right ventricular failure; however, data from randomized control trials are still required.

Inhaled Pulmonary Vasodilator Therapy in Adult Lung Transplant: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Inhaled nitric oxide (iNO) is commonly administered for selectively inhaled pulmonary vasodilation and prevention of oxidative injury after lung transplant (LT). Inhaled epoprostenol (iEPO) has been introduced worldwide as a cost-saving alternative to iNO without high-grade evidence for this indication.

Objective

To investigate whether the use of iEPO will lead to similar rates of severe/grade 3 primary graft dysfunction (PGD-3) after adult LT when compared with use of iNO.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This health system-funded, randomized, blinded (to participants, clinicians, data managers, and the statistician), parallel-designed, equivalence clinical trial included 201 adult patients who underwent single or bilateral LT between May 30, 2017, and March 21, 2020. Patients were grouped into 5 strata according to key prognostic clinical features and randomized per stratum to receive either iNO or iEPO at the time of LT via 1:1 treatment allocation.

Interventions

Treatment with iNO or iEPO initiated in the operating room before lung allograft reperfusion and administered continously until cessation criteria met in the intensive care unit (ICU).

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome was PGD-3 development at 24, 48, or 72 hours after LT. The primary analysis was for equivalence using a two one-sided test (TOST) procedure (90% CI) with a margin of 19% for between-group PGD-3 risk difference. Secondary outcomes included duration of mechanical ventilation, hospital and ICU lengths of stay, incidence and severity of acute kidney injury, postoperative tracheostomy placement, and in-hospital, 30-day, and 90-day mortality rates. An intention-to-treat analysis was performed for the primary and secondary outcomes, supplemented by per-protocol analysis for the primary outcome.

Results

A total of 201 randomized patients met eligibility criteria at the time of LT (129 men [64.2%]). In the intention-to-treat population, 103 patients received iEPO and 98 received iNO. The primary outcome occurred in 46 of 103 patients (44.7%) in the iEPO group and 39 of 98 (39.8%) in the iNO group, leading to a risk difference of 4.9% (TOST 90% CI, -6.4% to 16.2%; P = .02 for equivalence). There were no significant between-group differences for secondary outcomes.

Conclusions and Relevance

Among patients undergoing LT, use of iEPO was associated with similar risks for PGD-3 development and other postoperative outcomes compared with the use of iNO.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03081052.

The Use of Inhaled Epoprostenol for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Secondary due to COVID-19: A Case Series

Introduction

Inhaled epoprostenol (iEpo) is a pulmonary vasodilator used to treat refractory respiratory failure, including that caused by Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia.

Aim of Study

To describe the experience at three teaching hospitals using iEpo for severe respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and evaluate its efficacy in improving oxygenation.

Methods

Fifteen patients were included who received iEpo, had confirmed COVID-19 and had an arterial blood gas measurement in the 12 hours before and 24 hours after iEpo initiation.

Results

Eleven patients received prone ventilation before iEpo (73.3%), and six (40%) were paralyzed. The partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen (P/F ratio) improved from 95.7 mmHg to 118.9 mmHg (p=0.279) following iEpo initiation. In the nine patients with severe ARDS, the mean P/F ratio improved from 66.1 mmHg to 95.7 mmHg (p=0.317). Ultimately, four patients (26.7%) were extubated after an average of 9.9 days post-initiation.

Conclusions

The findings demonstrated a trend towards improvement in oxygenation in critically ill COVID-19 patients. Although limited by the small sample size, the results of this case series portend further investigation into the role of iEpo for severe respiratory failure associated with COVID-19.

Inhaled prostacyclin analogues in COVID-19 associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: scientific rationale

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS) is a severe form of SARS CoV-2 infection and affects about 15-30% of hospitalized patients with a high mortality rate. Growing research and data suggest several available drugs with appropriate pharmacological effects to treat COVID-19.

MAIN BODY

Prostacyclin analogues are regiments for pulmonary artery hypertension. Prostacyclin analogues are expected to be beneficial in treating CARDS based on at least four rationales: (1) inhaled prostacyclin analogues improve oxygenation, V/Q mismatch, and act as an ARDS therapy alternative; (2) it alleviates direct SARS-CoV-2-related coagulopathy; (3) increases nitric oxide production; and (4) possible anti-inflammatory effect. Prostacyclin analogues are available in oral, intravenous, and inhaled forms. The inhaled form has the advantage over other forms, such as parenteral administration risks. Previously, a meta-analysis demonstrated the beneficial effects of inhaled prostaglandins for ARDS treatment, such as improved PaO2/FiO2 and PaO2 along with reduced pulmonary artery pressure. Currently, two ongoing randomized controlled trials are evaluating inhaled epoprostenol (VPCOVID [NCT04452669]) and iloprost (ILOCOVID [NCT04445246]) for severe COVID-19 patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Inhaled prostacyclin could be considered in patients with refractory, life-threatening hypoxia despite standard management.

In-vitro and in-vivo comparisons of high versus low concentrations of inhaled epoprostenol to adult intubated patients

BACKGROUND

Inhaled epoprostenol (iEPO) has been shown to reduce pulmonary artery pressure and improve oxygenation. iEPO is mainly delivered via a syringe pump with feed tubing connected to a vibrating mesh nebulizer with high or low formulation concentration delivery.

METHODS

An in vitro study and a two-period retrospective case-control study were implemented. The in vitro study compared iEPO delivery via invasive ventilation at low concentrations of 7.5, and 15 mcg/mL and high concentration at 30 mcg/mL, to deliver the ordered dose of 30 and 50 ng/kg/min for three clinical scenarios with predicted body weight of 50, 70 and 90 kg. While in the clinical study, adult patients receiving iEPO via invasive ventilation to treat refractory hypoxemia, pulmonary hypertension, or right ventricular failure were included. 80 patients received low concentration iEPO at multiple concentrations (2.5, 7.5, and 15 mcg/mL, depending on the ordered dose) from 2015 to 2017, while 84 patients received high concentration iEPO at 30 mcg/mL from 2018 to 2019.

RESULTS

In the in vitro study, there were no significant differences in aerosol deposition between high vs low concentrations of iEPO at a dose of 50 ng/kg/min. In the clinical study, age, gender, ethnicity, and indications for iEPO were similar between high and low concentration groups. After 30-120 min of iEPO administration, both delivery strategies significantly improved oxygenation in hypoxemic patients and reduced mean pulmonary arterial pressure (mPAP) for patients with pulmonary hypertension. However, no significant differences of the incremental changes were found between two delivery groups. Compared to low concentration, high concentration delivery group had better adherence to the iEPO weaning protocol (96% vs 71%, p < 0.001), fewer iEPO syringes utilized per patient (5 [3, 10] vs 12 [6, 22], p = 0.001), and shorter duration of invasive ventilation (6 [3, 12] vs 9 [5, 18] days, p = 0.028). Intensive care unit length of stay and mortality were similar between two groups.

CONCLUSION

Compared to low concentration delivery of iEPO, high concentration iEPO via a vibrating mesh nebulizer maintained clinical benefits and increased clinician compliance with an iEPO weaning protocol, required less medication preparation time, and shortened duration of invasive ventilation.

Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and glucocorticoids in COVID-19

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), is characterized by a wide spectrum of symptom severity, which is manifested at different phases of infection and demands different levels of care. Viral load, host innate-immune response to SARS-CoV-2, and comorbidities have a direct impact on the clinical outcomes of COVID-19 patients and determine the diverse disease trajectories. The initial SARS-CoV-2 penetrance and replication in the host causes death of infected cells, determining the viral response. SARS-CoV-2 replication in the host triggers the activation of host antiviral immune mechanisms, determining the inflammatory response. While a healthy immune response is essential to eliminate infected cells and prevent spread of the virus, a dysfunctional immune response can result in a cytokine storm and hyperinflammation, contributing to disease progression.

Current therapies for COVID-19 target the virus and/or the host immune system and may be complicated in their efficacy by comorbidities. Here we review the evidence for use of two classes of anti-inflammatory drugs, glucocorticoids and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for the treatment of COVID-19. We consider the clinical evidence regarding the timing and efficacy of their use, their potential limitations, current recommendations and the prospect of future studies by these and related therapies.

COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Pulmonary Embolism: A Case Report of Nebulized Nitroglycerin and Systemic Thrombolysis For Right Ventricular Failure

BACKGROUND

Acute respiratory compromise caused by complications of COVID-19, such as acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or thromboembolic disease, is a complex syndrome with unique challenges in treatment. Management often requires time and intensive care through a multiprofessional, multispecialty approach. Initial management is particularly challenging within the limited-resource environment of the emergency department (ED). The emergency physician's toolbox of treatments with reasonably rapid onset remains limited to respiratory support, prone positioning, steroids, and anticoagulation.

CASE REPORT

We present a case of a patient with COVID-19 complicated by ARDS and bilateral pulmonary emboli with severe right ventricular dysfunction and systemic hypotension treated with nebulized nitroglycerin and systemic thrombolytic therapy in the ED. Serial evaluation of right ventricular function using point of care ultrasound over the next 2 h showed improvement of function with both agents as well as improvement in the patient's respiratory rate and work of breathing. WHY SHOULD AN EMERGENCY PHYSICIAN BE AWARE OF THIS?: This case describes a novel use of a widely available medication for patients with COVID-19-induced right ventricular dysfunction. Nebulized nitroglycerin may be an option to improve right ventricular function when other inhaled pulmonary vasodilators are not available in the initial ED setting. © 2021 Elsevier Inc.

High levels of eicosanoids and docosanoids in the lungs of intubated COVID-19 patients

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 is responsible for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). While COVID-19 is often benign, a subset of patients develops severe multilobar pneumonia that can progress to an acute respiratory distress syndrome. There is no cure for severe COVID-19 and few treatments significantly improved clinical outcome. Dexamethasone and possibly aspirin, which directly/indirectly target the biosynthesis/effects of numerous lipid mediators are among those options. Our objective was to define if severe COVID-19 patients were characterized by increased bioactive lipids modulating lung inflammation. A targeted lipidomic analysis of bronchoalveolar lavages (BALs) by tandem mass spectrometry was done on 25 healthy controls and 33 COVID-19 patients requiring mechanical ventilation. BALs from severe COVID-19 patients were characterized by increased fatty acids and inflammatory lipid mediators. There was a predominance of thromboxane and prostaglandins. Leukotrienes were also increased, notably LTB₄ , LTE₄ , and eoxin E₄ . Monohydroxylated 15-lipoxygenase metabolites derived from linoleate, arachidonate, eicosapentaenoate, and docosahexaenoate were also increased. Finally yet importantly, specialized pro-resolving mediators, notably lipoxin A₄ and the D-series resolvins, were also increased, underscoring that the lipid mediator storm occurring in severe COVID-19 involves pro- and anti-inflammatory lipids. Our data unmask the lipid mediator storm occurring in the lungs of patients afflicted with severe COVID-19. We discuss which clinically available drugs could be helpful at modulating the lipidome we observed in the hope of minimizing the deleterious effects of pro-inflammatory lipids and enhancing the effects of anti-inflammatory and/or pro-resolving lipid mediators.