Literature DB >> 32299472

COVID-19 pneumonia: ARDS or not?

Luciano Gattinoni1, Davide Chiumello2, Sandra Rossi3.   

Abstract

Entities:  

Keywords:  ARDS; COVID-19; Mechanical ventilation

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32299472      PMCID: PMC7160817          DOI: 10.1186/s13054-020-02880-z

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Crit Care        ISSN: 1364-8535            Impact factor:   9.097


× No keyword cloud information.
Even though it can meet the ARDS Berlin definition [1, 2], the COVID-19 pneumonia is a specific disease with peculiar phenotypes. Its main characteristic is the dissociation between the severity of the hypoxemia and the maintenance of relatively good respiratory mechanics. Indeed, the median respiratory system compliance is usually around 50 ml/cmH2O. Of note, the patients with respiratory compliance lower or higher than the median value experience hypoxemia of similar severity. We propose the presence of two types of patients (“non-ARDS,” type 1, and ARDS, type 2) with different pathophysiology. When presenting at the hospital, type 1 and type 2 patients are clearly distinguishable by CT scan (Fig. 1). If the CT scan is not available, the respiratory system compliance and possibly the response to PEEP are the only imperfect surrogates we may suggest.
Fig. 1

In these 2 patients were recorded the following variables: type 1 lung weight (1192 g), gas volume (2774 ml), percentage of non-aerated tissue (8.4%), venous admixture (56%), P/F (68), and respiratory system compliance (80 ml/cmH2O); type 2 lung weight (1441 g), gas volume (1640 ml), percentage of non-aerated tissue (39%), venous admixture (49%), P/F (61), and respiratory system compliance (43 ml/cmH2O)

In these 2 patients were recorded the following variables: type 1 lung weight (1192 g), gas volume (2774 ml), percentage of non-aerated tissue (8.4%), venous admixture (56%), P/F (68), and respiratory system compliance (80 ml/cmH2O); type 2 lung weight (1441 g), gas volume (1640 ml), percentage of non-aerated tissue (39%), venous admixture (49%), P/F (61), and respiratory system compliance (43 ml/cmH2O)

Type 1: Near normal pulmonary compliance with isolated viral pneumonia

In these patients, severe hypoxemia is associated with respiratory system compliance > 50 ml/cmH2O. The lung’s gas volume is high, the recruitability is minimal, and the hypoxemia is likely due to the loss of hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction and impaired regulation of pulmonary blood flow. Therefore, severe hypoxemia is primarily due to ventilation/perfusion (VA/Q) mismatch. High PEEP and prone positioning do not improve oxygenation through recruitment of collapsed areas, but redistribute pulmonary perfusion, improving the VA/Q relationship. Lung CT scans in those patients confirm that there are no significant areas to recruit, but the right-to-left venous admixture is typically around 50%.

Type 2: Decreased pulmonary compliance

In 20–30% of these COVID-19 patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), severe hypoxemia is associated with compliance values < 40 ml/cmH2O, indicating severe ARDS [3]. It is certainly possible that their lower compliance (i.e., lower gas volume and increased recruitability) is due to the natural evolution of the disease, but we cannot exclude the possibility that this severity of damage (increased edema) results in part from the initial respiratory management. Indeed, some of these hypoxemic patients receive CPAP or non-invasive ventilation before ICU admission and present with very high respiratory drives, vigorous inspiratory efforts, and highly negative intrathoracic pressures. Therefore, in addition to viral pneumonia, those patients likely have self-inflicted ventilator-induced lung injury [4].

Clinical implications

Before ICU, in non-intubated patients

CPAP and NIV are the first-line treatment when an overwhelming number of patients come to a hospital. These interventions, often applied outside the ICU in emergency rooms or in other medicine wards, usually improve blood oxygenation. A key aspect of care, however, should be the assessment of respiratory drive and the inspiratory efforts. The ideal indicator would be the measurement of the esophageal pressure swings. If impossible, the clinical signs of inspiratory efforts should be carefully scrutinized. If respiratory distress is present, endotracheal intubation should be strongly considered to avoid/limit the transition from type 1 to type 2 by self-induced lung injury.

In ICU, intubated patients

Tidal volume

In type 2 patients, a lower tidal volume should be applied. However, type 1 patients lack the low compliance/high driving pressure prerequisites of ventilator-induced lung injury, even if treated with volumes higher than 6 ml/kg delivered at respiratory rates of 15–20 breaths/min [5]. More liberal tidal volume (7–8 ml/kg) often attenuates dyspnea and may avoid hypoventilation with possible reabsorption atelectasis and hypercapnia.

PEEP

The type 1 patients lack the prerequisite for higher PEEP to work (recruitability). PEEP levels should be limited at 8–10 cmH2O, since higher levels will decrease pulmonary compliance and can impact right heart function. The type 2 patients are characterized by a reduction of total gas volume and an increase in lung weight and edema. These features may be due to the natural progression of the disease, to bacterial superinfection and/or to self-induced lung injury during the period preceding the intubation. In these patients, a cautious gradual increase of PEEP up to 14–15 cmH2O may be beneficial. A decrease in SvO2 during this phase suggests an inadequate cardiac output so that higher PEEP levels for lung recruitment may no longer be useful. Cardiac ultrasound may also be useful for assessing right heart function when increasing PEEP levels.

Shunt determination

Calculating the shunt fraction is the best tool to assess oxygenation. The etCO2/PaCO2 relationship is a useful tool to quantify efficiency of pulmonary exchange. A ratio < 1 suggests elevated shunt and dead space (areas of lung ventilated and not perfused).

Prone positioning

For type 2 patients, prone position could be used as a long-term treatment—as in any form of severe ARDS [6, 7]. However, in type 1 patients, prone positioning should be considered more as a rescue maneuver to facilitate the redistribution of pulmonary blood flow, rather than for opening collapsed areas. Long-term prone positioning/supine cycles is of very little benefit in patients with high lung compliance, and it leads to high levels of stress and fatigue in the personnel.

Nitric oxide

The oxygenation response to NO is variable. The COVID-19 pneumonia appears to interfere with the vascular regulation up to complete loss of vascular tone to vasoconstricting or vasodilating agents. We still do not have enough evidence to understand when and on which patients it should be applied. Nitric oxide should not work in fully vasoplegic patients (type 1 in our model) but possibly works in patients in which pulmonary hypertension is more likely (type 2 in our model).

(Micro)thrombosis and D-dimer levels

In this disease, thrombosis and associated ischemic events are very common. A daily check of coagulation parameters, in particular D-dimer levels, should be performed in both the type 1 and the type 2 patients, judiciously anticoagulated when indicated. Type 1 patients: PEEP levels should be kept lower in patients with high pulmonary compliance Tidal volume thresholds should not be limited at 6 ml/kg Respiratory rate should not exceed 20 breaths/min Patients should be left “quiet”; avoiding doing too much is of higher benefit than intervening at any cost. Type 2 patients: Standard treatment for severe ARDS should be applied (lower tidal volume, prone positioning, and relatively high PEEP).
  6 in total

1.  Prone positioning in the acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Authors:  Claude Guérin; Jean Reignier; Jean-Christophe Richard
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2013-09-05       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Authors:  Roy G Brower; Michael A Matthay; Alan Morris; David Schoenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; Arthur Wheeler
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2000-05-04       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  Mechanical Ventilation to Minimize Progression of Lung Injury in Acute Respiratory Failure.

Authors:  Laurent Brochard; Arthur Slutsky; Antonio Pesenti
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2017-02-15       Impact factor: 21.405

Review 4.  Prone position in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Rationale, indications, and limits.

Authors:  Luciano Gattinoni; Paolo Taccone; Eleonora Carlesso; John J Marini
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2013-12-01       Impact factor: 21.405

5.  Reclassifying Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

Authors:  Giorgia Maiolo; Francesca Collino; Francesco Vasques; Francesca Rapetti; Tommaso Tonetti; Federica Romitti; Massimo Cressoni; Davide Chiumello; Onnen Moerer; Peter Herrmann; Tim Friede; Michael Quintel; Luciano Gattinoni
Journal:  Am J Respir Crit Care Med       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 21.405

6.  Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin Definition.

Authors:  V Marco Ranieri; Gordon D Rubenfeld; B Taylor Thompson; Niall D Ferguson; Ellen Caldwell; Eddy Fan; Luigi Camporota; Arthur S Slutsky
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2012-06-20       Impact factor: 56.272

  6 in total
  212 in total

1.  A case report of individualized ventilation in a COVID-19 patient - new possibilities and caveats to consider with flow-controlled ventilation.

Authors:  Patrick Spraider; Gabriel Putzer; Robert Breitkopf; Julia Abram; Simon Mathis; Bernhard Glodny; Judith Martini
Journal:  BMC Anesthesiol       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 2.217

2.  Factors influencing liberation from mechanical ventilation in coronavirus disease 2019: multicenter observational study in fifteen Italian ICUs.

Authors:  Lorenzo Gamberini; Tommaso Tonetti; Savino Spadaro; Gianluca Zani; Carlo Alberto Mazzoli; Chiara Capozzi; Emanuela Giampalma; Maria Letizia Bacchi Reggiani; Elisabetta Bertellini; Andrea Castelli; Irene Cavalli; Davide Colombo; Federico Crimaldi; Federica Damiani; Alberto Fogagnolo; Maurizio Fusari; Emiliano Gamberini; Giovanni Gordini; Cristiana Laici; Maria Concetta Lanza; Mirco Leo; Andrea Marudi; Giuseppe Nardi; Irene Ottaviani; Raffaella Papa; Antonella Potalivo; Emanuele Russo; Stefania Taddei; Carlo Alberto Volta; V Marco Ranieri
Journal:  J Intensive Care       Date:  2020-10-15

3.  The prognostic value of chest X-ray in patients with COVID-19 on admission and when starting CPAP.

Authors:  Will Sargent; Sajeed Ali; Sebi Kukran; Miranda Harvie; Susanne Soin
Journal:  Clin Med (Lond)       Date:  2021-01       Impact factor: 2.659

4.  SARS-CoV-2 may regulate cellular responses through depletion of specific host miRNAs.

Authors:  Rafal Bartoszewski; Michal Dabrowski; Bogdan Jakiela; Sadis Matalon; Kevin S Harrod; Marek Sanak; James F Collawn
Journal:  Am J Physiol Lung Cell Mol Physiol       Date:  2020-08-05       Impact factor: 5.464

5.  ICU Bed Utilization During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic in a Multistate Analysis-March to June 2020.

Authors:  David J Douin; Michael J Ward; Christopher J Lindsell; Michelle P Howell; Catherine L Hough; Matthew C Exline; Michelle N Gong; Michael S Aboodi; Mark W Tenforde; Leora R Feldstein; William B Stubblefield; Jay S Steingrub; Matthew E Prekker; Samuel M Brown; Ithan D Peltan; Akram Khan; D Clark Files; Kevin W Gibbs; Todd W Rice; Jonathan D Casey; David N Hager; Nida Qadir; Daniel J Henning; Jennifer G Wilson; Manish M Patel; Wesley H Self; Adit A Ginde
Journal:  Crit Care Explor       Date:  2021-03-12

6.  Prone Positioning and Survival in Mechanically Ventilated Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019-Related Respiratory Failure.

Authors:  Kusum S Mathews; Howard Soh; Shahzad Shaefi; Wei Wang; Sonali Bose; Steven Coca; Shruti Gupta; Salim S Hayek; Anand Srivastava; Samantha K Brenner; Jared Radbel; Adam Green; Anne Sutherland; Amanda Leonberg-Yoo; Alexandre Shehata; Edward J Schenck; Samuel A P Short; Miguel A Hernán; Lili Chan; David E Leaf
Journal:  Crit Care Med       Date:  2021-07-01       Impact factor: 7.598

7.  COVID-Lung: The Battlefield.

Authors:  Benan Bayrakci
Journal:  J Pediatr Intensive Care       Date:  2020-09-21

8.  Quality of life of COVID-19 critically ill survivors after ICU discharge: 90 days follow-up.

Authors:  Lorenzo Gamberini; Carlo Alberto Mazzoli; Harri Sintonen; Davide Colombo; Gaetano Scaramuzzo; Davide Allegri; Tommaso Tonetti; Gianluca Zani; Chiara Capozzi; Emanuela Giampalma; Vanni Agnoletti; Filippo Becherucci; Elisabetta Bertellini; Andrea Castelli; Iacopo Cappellini; Irene Cavalli; Federico Crimaldi; Federica Damiani; Maurizio Fusari; Giovanni Gordini; Cristiana Laici; Maria Concetta Lanza; Mirco Leo; Andrea Marudi; Giuseppe Nardi; Irene Ottaviani; Raffaella Papa; Antonella Potalivo; Vito Marco Ranieri; Emanuele Russo; Stefania Taddei; Carlo Alberto Volta; Savino Spadaro
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2021-05-12       Impact factor: 4.147

9.  SARS-CoV-2 infection: molecular mechanisms of severe outcomes to suggest therapeutics.

Authors:  Nicholas Hartog; William Faber; Austin Frisch; Jacob Bauss; Caleb P Bupp; Surender Rajasekaran; Jeremy W Prokop
Journal:  Expert Rev Proteomics       Date:  2021-04-05       Impact factor: 3.940

10.  Echocardiographic Evaluation of Right Ventricular (RV) Performance over Time in COVID-19-Associated ARDS-A Prospective Observational Study.

Authors:  Golschan Asgarpur; Sascha Treskatsch; Stefan Angermair; Michaela Danassis; Anna Maria Nothnagel; Christoph Toepper; Ralf Felix Trauzeddel; Michael Nordine; Julia Heeschen; Alaa Al-Chehadeh; Ulf Landmesser; Leif Erik Sander; Florian Kurth; Christian Berger
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2021-05-01       Impact factor: 4.241

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.