Pulmonary Hemodynamics and Ventilation in Patients With COVID-19-Related Respiratory Failure and ARDS

Serial echocardiographic evaluation of COVID-19 patients without prior history of structural heart disease: a 1-year follow-up CRACoV-HHS study

Background

It is a well-known fact that COVID-19 affects the cardiovascular system by exacerbating heart failure in patients with preexisting conditions. However, there is a poor insight into the cardiovascular involvement and sequelae in patients without preexisting conditions. The aim of the study is to analyse the influence of COVID-19 on cardiac performance in patients without prior history of structural heart disease. The study is part of the CRACoV project, which includes a prospective design and a 12-month follow-up period.

Material and methods

The study included 229 patients hospitalised with a diagnosis of COVID-19 (median age of 59 years, 81 were women). A standard clinical assessment and laboratory tests were performed in all participants. An extended echocardiographic image acquisition was performed at baseline and at a 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up. All analyses were performed off-line. A series of echocardiographic parameters was compared using repeated measures or Friedman analysis of variance.

Results

In all subjects, the left ventricular (LV) ejection fraction at baseline was preserved [63.0%; Q1:Q3 (60.0-66.0)]. Elevated levels of high-sensitivity cardiac troponin T were detected in 21.3% of the patients, and elevated NT-proBNP levels were detected in 55.8%. At the 1-year follow-up, no significant changes were observed in the LV diameter and volume (LV 48.0 ± 5.2 vs. 47.8 ± 4.8 mm, p = 0.08), while a significant improvement of the parameters in the biventricular strain was observed (LV -19.1 ± 3.3% vs. -19.7 ± 2.5%, p = 0.01, and right ventricular -19.9 ± 4.5% vs. -23.2 ± 4.9%, p = 0.002). In addition, a decrease in the LV wall thickness was also observed (interventricular septum 10.4 ± 1.6 vs. 9.7 ± 2.0 mm, p < 0.001; LV posterior wall 9.8 ± 1.4 vs. 9.1 ± 1.5 mm, p < 0.001).

Conclusions

In an acute phase of COVID-19, the elevation of cardiac biomarkers in patients with normal left ventricular ejection fraction is a frequent occurrence; however, it does not translate into clinically significant cardiac dysfunction after 1 year. The serial echocardiographic evaluations conducted in patients without preexisting structural heart disease demonstrate an overall trend towards an improved cardiac function and a reduced myocardial thickening at 1-year follow-up. This suggests that the acute cardiac consequences of COVID-19 are associated with systemic inflammation and haemodynamic stress in patients without preexisting conditions.

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.

Mechanical Power in Prone Position Intubated Patients with COVID-19-Related ARDS: A Cohort Study

Background

Respiratory monitoring of mechanical ventilation (MV) is relevant and challenging in COVID-19. Mechanical power (MP) is a novel and promising monitoring tool in acute distress respiratory syndrome (ARDS), representing the amount of energy transferred from the ventilator to the patient. It encompasses several setting parameters and patient-dependent variables that could cause lung injury. MP can therefore be an additional tool in the assessment of these patients.

Objective

This study aims to evaluate respiratory monitoring through MP and its relationship with mortality in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS (CARDS) under mechanical ventilation (MV) and prone position (PP) strategies.

Methods

Retrospective, unicentric, and cohort studies. We included patients with CARDS under invasive MV and PP strategies. Information regarding MP, ventilation, and gas exchange was collected at 3 moments: (1) prior to the first PP, (2) during the first PP, and (3) during the last PP. We tested the relationship between MP and VR with in-hospital mortality.

Results

We included 91 patients. There was a statistically significant difference in MP measurements between survivors and nonsurvivors only in the last prone position (p < 0.001). This is due to the significant increase in MP measurements in nonsurvivors (difference from the baseline: 3.63 J/min; 95% CI: 0.31 to 6.94), which was not observed in the group that survived (difference from the baseline: 0.02 J/min; 95% CI: -2.66 to 2.70). In multivariate analysis, MP (p=0.009) was associated with hospital death when corrected for confounder variables (SAPS 3 score, mechanical ventilation time, age, and number of prone sessions).

Conclusions

MP is an independent predictor of mortality in PP patients with CARDS.

Capnodynamic monitoring of lung volume and blood flow in response to increased positive end-expiratory pressure in moderate to severe COVID-19 pneumonia: an observational study

Background

The optimal level of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) during mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 pneumonia remains debated and should ideally be guided by responses in both lung volume and perfusion. Capnodynamic monitoring allows both end-expiratory lung volume (\documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\text{EELV}}_{{{\text{CO}}_{2} }}$$\end{document}EELVCO2) and effective pulmonary blood flow (EPBF) to be determined at the bedside with ongoing ventilation.

Methods

Patients with COVID-19-related moderate to severe respiratory failure underwent capnodynamic monitoring of \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\text{EELV}}_{{{\text{CO}}_{2} }}$$\end{document}EELVCO2 and EPBF during a step increase in PEEP by 50% above the baseline (PEEP_low to PEEP_high). The primary outcome was a > 20 mm Hg increase in arterial oxygen tension to inspired fraction of oxygen (P/F) ratio to define responders versus non-responders. Secondary outcomes included changes in physiological dead space and correlations with independently determined recruited lung volume and the recruitment-to-inflation ratio at an instantaneous, single breath decrease in PEEP. Mixed factor ANOVA for group mean differences and correlations by Pearson’s correlation coefficient are reported including their 95% confidence intervals.

Results

Of 27 patients studied, 15 responders increased the P/F ratio by 55 [24–86] mm Hg compared to 12 non-responders (p < 0.01) as PEEP_low (11 ± 2.7 cm H₂O) was increased to PEEP_high (18 ± 3.0 cm H₂O). The \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\text{EELV}}_{{{\text{CO}}_{2} }}$$\end{document}EELVCO2 was 461 [82–839] ml less in responders at PEEP_low (p = 0.02) but not statistically different between groups at PEEP_high. Responders increased both \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\text{EELV}}_{{{\text{CO}}_{2} }}$$\end{document}EELVCO2 and EPBF at PEEP_high (r = 0.56 [0.18–0.83], p = 0.03). In contrast, non-responders demonstrated a negative correlation (r = − 0.65 [− 0.12 to − 0.89], p = 0.02) with increased lung volume associated with decreased pulmonary perfusion. Decreased (− 0.06 [− 0.02 to − 0.09] %, p < 0.01) dead space was observed in responders. The change in \documentclass[12pt]{minimal} \usepackage{amsmath} \usepackage{wasysym} \usepackage{amsfonts} \usepackage{amssymb} \usepackage{amsbsy} \usepackage{mathrsfs} \usepackage{upgreek} \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{-69pt} \begin{document}$${\text{EELV}}_{{{\text{CO}}_{2} }}$$\end{document}EELVCO2 correlated with both the recruited lung volume (r = 0.85 [0.69–0.93], p < 0.01) and the recruitment-to-inflation ratio (r = 0.87 [0.74–0.94], p < 0.01).

Conclusions

In mechanically ventilated patients with moderate to severe COVID-19 respiratory failure, improved oxygenation in response to increased PEEP was associated with increased end-expiratory lung volume and pulmonary perfusion. The change in end-expiratory lung volume was positively correlated with the lung volume recruited and the recruitment-to-inflation ratio. This study demonstrates the feasibility of capnodynamic monitoring to assess physiological responses to PEEP at the bedside to facilitate an individualised setting of PEEP.

Trial registration: NCT05082168 (18th October 2021).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-022-04110-0.

Respiratory Physiology of COVID-19 and Influenza Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Background: There is ongoing debate whether lung physiology of COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) differs from ARDS of other origin. Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze and compare how critically ill patients with COVID-19 and Influenza A or B were ventilated in our tertiary care center with or without extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We ask if acute lung failure due to COVID-19 requires different intensive care management compared to conventional ARDS. Methods: 25 patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS were matched to a cohort of 25 Influenza patients treated in our center from 2011 to 2021. Subgroup analysis addressed whether patients on ECMO received different mechanical ventilation than patients without extracorporeal support. Results: Compared to Influenza-associated ARDS, COVID-19 patients had higher ventilatory system compliance (40.7 mL/mbar [31.8–46.7 mL/mbar] vs. 31.4 mL/mbar [13.7–42.8 mL/mbar], p = 0.198), higher ventilatory ratio (1.57 [1.31–1.84] vs. 0.91 [0.44–1.38], p = 0.006) and higher minute ventilation at the time of intubation (mean minute ventilation 10.7 l/min [7.2–12.2 l/min] for COVID-19 vs. 6.0 l/min [2.5–10.1 l/min] for Influenza, p = 0.013). There were no measurable differences in P/F ratio, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and driving pressures (ΔP). Respiratory system compliance deteriorated considerably in COVID-19 patients on ECMO during 2 weeks of mechanical ventilation (Crs, mean decrease over 2 weeks −23.87 mL/mbar ± 32.94 mL/mbar, p = 0.037) but not in ventilated Influenza patients on ECMO and less so in ventilated COVID-19 patients without ECMO. For COVID-19 patients, low driving pressures on ECMO were strongly correlated to a decline in compliance after 2 weeks (Pearson’s R 0.80, p = 0.058). Overall mortality was insignificantly lower for COVID-19 patients compared to Influenza patients (40% vs. 48%, p = 0.31). Outcome was insignificantly worse for patients requiring veno-venous ECMO in both groups (50% mortality for COVID-19 on ECMO vs. 27% without ECMO, p = 0.30/56% vs. 34% mortality for Influenza A/B with and without ECMO, p = 0.31). Conclusion: The pathophysiology of early COVID-19-associated ARDS differs from Influenza-associated acute lung failure by sustained respiratory mechanics during the early phase of ventilation. We question whether intubated COVID-19 patients on ECMO benefit from extremely low driving pressures, as this appears to accelerate derecruitment and consecutive loss of ventilatory system compliance.