Orthodeoxia and its implications on awake-proning in COVID-19 pneumonia

Causes of Hypoxemia in COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Combined Multiple Inert Gas Elimination Technique and Dual-energy Computed Tomography Study

BACKGROUND

Despite the fervent scientific effort, a state-of-the art assessment of the different causes of hypoxemia (shunt, ventilation-perfusion mismatch, and diffusion limitation) in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is currently lacking. In this study, the authors hypothesized a multifactorial genesis of hypoxemia and aimed to measure the relative contribution of each of the different mechanism and their relationship with the distribution of tissue and blood within the lung.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, the authors prospectively enrolled 10 patients with COVID-19 ARDS who had been intubated for less than 7 days. The multiple inert gas elimination technique (MIGET) and a dual-energy computed tomography (DECT) were performed and quantitatively analyzed for both tissue and blood volume. Variables related to the respiratory mechanics and invasive hemodynamics (PiCCO [Getinge, Sweden]) were also recorded.

RESULTS

The sample (51 ± 15 yr; Pao2/Fio2, 172 ± 86 mmHg) had a mortality of 50%. The MIGET showed a shunt of 25 ± 16% and a dead space of 53 ± 11%. Ventilation and perfusion were mismatched (LogSD, Q, 0.86 ± 0.33). Unexpectedly, evidence of diffusion limitation or postpulmonary shunting was also found. In the well aerated regions, the blood volume was in excess compared to the tissue, while the opposite happened in the atelectasis. Shunt was proportional to the blood volume of the atelectasis (R2 = 0.70, P = 0.003). V˙A/Q˙T mismatch was correlated with the blood volume of the poorly aerated tissue (R2 = 0.54, P = 0.016). The overperfusion coefficient was related to Pao2/Fio2 (R2 = 0.66, P = 0.002), excess tissue mass (R2 = 0.84, P < 0.001), and Etco2/Paco2 (R2 = 0.63, P = 0.004).

CONCLUSIONS

These data support the hypothesis of a highly multifactorial genesis of hypoxemia. Moreover, recent evidence from post-mortem studies (i.e., opening of intrapulmonary bronchopulmonary anastomosis) may explain the findings regarding the postpulmonary shunting. The hyperperfusion might be related to the disease severity.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE

Effects of CPAP and FiO2 on respiratory effort and lung stress in early COVID-19 pneumonia: a randomized, crossover study

BACKGROUND

in COVID-19 acute respiratory failure, the effects of CPAP and FiO2 on respiratory effort and lung stress are unclear. We hypothesize that, in the compliant lungs of early Sars-CoV-2 pneumonia, the application of positive pressure through Helmet-CPAP may not decrease respiratory effort, and rather worsen lung stress and oxygenation when compared to higher FiO2 delivered via oxygen masks.

METHODS

In this single-center (S.Luigi Gonzaga University-Hospital, Turin, Italy), randomized, crossover study, we included patients receiving Helmet-CPAP for early (< 48 h) COVID-19 pneumonia without additional cardiac or respiratory disease. Healthy subjects were included as controls. Participants were equipped with an esophageal catheter, a non-invasive cardiac output monitor, and an arterial catheter. The protocol consisted of a random sequence of non-rebreather mask (NRB), Helmet-CPAP (with variable positive pressure and FiO2) and Venturi mask (FiO2 0.5), each delivered for 20 min. Study outcomes were changes in respiratory effort (esophageal swing), total lung stress (dynamic + static transpulmonary pressure), gas-exchange and hemodynamics.

RESULTS

We enrolled 28 COVID-19 patients and 7 healthy controls. In all patients, respiratory effort increased from NRB to Helmet-CPAP (5.0 ± 3.7 vs 8.3 ± 3.9 cmH2O, p < 0.01). However, Helmet's pressure decreased by a comparable amount during inspiration (- 3.1 ± 1.0 cmH2O, p = 0.16), therefore dynamic stress remained stable (p = 0.97). Changes in static and total lung stress from NRB to Helmet-CPAP were overall not significant (p = 0.07 and p = 0.09, respectively), but showed high interpatient variability, ranging from - 4.5 to + 6.1 cmH2O, and from - 5.8 to + 5.7 cmH2O, respectively. All findings were confirmed in healthy subjects, except for an increase in dynamic stress (p < 0.01). PaO2 decreased from NRB to Helmet-CPAP with FiO2 0.5 (107 ± 55 vs 86 ± 30 mmHg, p < 0.01), irrespective of positive pressure levels (p = 0.64). Conversely, with Helmet's FiO2 0.9, PaO2 increased (p < 0.01), but oxygen delivery remained stable (p = 0.48) as cardiac output decreased (p = 0.02). When PaO2 fell below 60 mmHg with VM, respiratory effort increased proportionally (p < 0.01, r = 0.81).

CONCLUSIONS

In early COVID-19 pneumonia, Helmet-CPAP increases respiratory effort without altering dynamic stress, while the effects upon static and total stress are variable, requiring individual assessment. Oxygen masks with higher FiO2 provide better oxygenation with lower respiratory effort. Trial registration Retrospectively registered (13-May-2021): clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04885517), https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04885517 .

Effect of body position on the redistribution of regional lung aeration during invasive and non-invasive ventilation of COVID-19 patients

Severe COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (C-ARDS) requires mechanical ventilation. While this intervention is often performed in the prone position to improve oxygenation, the underlying mechanisms responsible for the improvement in respiratory function during invasive ventilation and awake prone positioning in C-ARDS have not yet been elucidated. In this prospective observational trial, we evaluated the respiratory function of C-ARDS patients while in the supine and prone positions during invasive (n = 13) or non-invasive ventilation (n = 15). The primary endpoint was the positional change in lung regional aeration, assessed with electrical impedance tomography. Secondary endpoints included parameters of ventilation and oxygenation, volumetric capnography, respiratory system mechanics and intrapulmonary shunt fraction. In comparison to the supine position, the prone position significantly increased ventilation distribution in dorsal lung zones for patients under invasive ventilation (53.3 ± 18.3% vs. 43.8 ± 12.3%, percentage of dorsal lung aeration ± standard deviation in prone and supine positions, respectively; p = 0.014); whereas, regional aeration in both positions did not change during non-invasive ventilation (36.4 ± 11.4% vs. 33.7 ± 10.1%; p = 0.43). Prone positioning significantly improved the oxygenation both during invasive and non-invasive ventilation. For invasively ventilated patients reduced intrapulmonary shunt fraction, ventilation dead space and respiratory resistance were observed in the prone position. Oxygenation is improved during non-invasive and invasive ventilation with prone positioning in patients with C-ARDS. Different mechanisms may underly this benefit during these two ventilation modalities, driven by improved distribution of lung regional aeration, intrapulmonary shunt fraction and ventilation-perfusion matching. However, the differences in the severity of C-ARDS may have biased the sensitivity of electrical impedance tomography when comparing positional changes between the protocol groups.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04359407) and Registered 24 April 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04359407 .