Lorenzo Ball1,2, Denise Battaglini2, Chiara Robba3,4, Danilo Cardim5, Emanuela Moncalvo1, Iole Brunetti2, Matteo Bassetti6,7, Daniele R Giacobbe6,7, Antonio Vena7, Nicolò Patroniti1,2, Patricia R M Rocco8, Basil F Matta9, Paolo Pelosi1,2. 1. Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics (DISC), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy. 2. IRCCS for Oncology and Neuroscience, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy. 3. Department of Surgical Sciences and Integrated Diagnostics (DISC), University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy. kiarobba@gmail.com. 4. IRCCS for Oncology and Neuroscience, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy. kiarobba@gmail.com. 5. Department of Neurology, University of Texas, Austin, USA. 6. Department of Health Sciences (DISSAL), University of Genoa, Genoa , Italy. 7. Infectious Diseases Unit, IRCCS for Oncology and Neuroscience, Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy. 8. Laboratory of Pulmonary Investigation, Carlos Chagas Filho Institute of Biophysics, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. 9. Neurocritical Care Unit, Addenbrooke's Hospital, Cambridge, UK.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the effectiveness of ventilatory rescue strategies remains uncertain, with controversial efficacy on systemic oxygenation and no data available regarding cerebral oxygenation and hemodynamics. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study conducted at San Martino Policlinico Hospital, Genoa, Italy. We included adult COVID-19 patients who underwent at least one of the following rescue therapies: recruitment maneuvers (RMs), prone positioning (PP), inhaled nitric oxide (iNO), and extracorporeal carbon dioxide (CO2) removal (ECCO2R). Arterial blood gas values (oxygen saturation [SpO2], partial pressure of oxygen [PaO2] and of carbon dioxide [PaCO2]) and cerebral oxygenation (rSO2) were analyzed before (T0) and after (T1) the use of any of the aforementioned rescue therapies. The primary aim was to assess the early effects of different ventilatory rescue therapies on systemic and cerebral oxygenation. The secondary aim was to evaluate the correlation between systemic and cerebral oxygenation in COVID-19 patients. RESULTS: Forty-five rescue therapies were performed in 22 patients. The median [interquartile range] age of the population was 62 [57-69] years, and 18/22 [82%] were male. After RMs, no significant changes were observed in systemic PaO2 and PaCO2 values, but cerebral oxygenation decreased significantly (52 [51-54]% vs. 49 [47-50]%, p < 0.001). After PP, a significant increase was observed in PaO2 (from 62 [56-71] to 82 [76-87] mmHg, p = 0.005) and rSO2 (from 53 [52-54]% to 60 [59-64]%, p = 0.005). The use of iNO increased PaO2 (from 65 [67-73] to 72 [67-73] mmHg, p = 0.015) and rSO2 (from 53 [51-56]% to 57 [55-59]%, p = 0.007). The use of ECCO2R decreased PaO2 (from 75 [75-79] to 64 [60-70] mmHg, p = 0.009), with reduction of rSO2 values (59 [56-65]% vs. 56 [53-62]%, p = 0.002). In the whole population, a significant relationship was found between SpO2 and rSO2 (R = 0.62, p < 0.001) and between PaO2 and rSO2 (R0 0.54, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Rescue therapies exert specific pathophysiological mechanisms, resulting in different effects on systemic and cerebral oxygenation in critically ill COVID-19 patients with ARDS. Cerebral and systemic oxygenation are correlated. The choice of rescue strategy to be adopted should take into account both lung and brain needs. Registration The study protocol was approved by the ethics review board (Comitato Etico Regione Liguria, protocol n. CER Liguria: 23/2020).
BACKGROUND: In COVID-19patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), the effectiveness of ventilatory rescue strategies remains uncertain, with controversial efficacy on systemic oxygenation and no data available regarding cerebral oxygenation and hemodynamics. METHODS: This is a prospective observational study conducted at San Martino Policlinico Hospital, Genoa, Italy. We included adult COVID-19patients who underwent at least one of the following rescue therapies: recruitment maneuvers (RMs), prone positioning (PP), inhaled nitric oxide (iNO), and extracorporeal carbon dioxide (CO2) removal (ECCO2R). Arterial blood gas values (oxygen saturation [SpO2], partial pressure of oxygen [PaO2] and of carbon dioxide [PaCO2]) and cerebral oxygenation (rSO2) were analyzed before (T0) and after (T1) the use of any of the aforementioned rescue therapies. The primary aim was to assess the early effects of different ventilatory rescue therapies on systemic and cerebral oxygenation. The secondary aim was to evaluate the correlation between systemic and cerebral oxygenation in COVID-19patients. RESULTS: Forty-five rescue therapies were performed in 22 patients. The median [interquartile range] age of the population was 62 [57-69] years, and 18/22 [82%] were male. After RMs, no significant changes were observed in systemic PaO2 and PaCO2 values, but cerebral oxygenation decreased significantly (52 [51-54]% vs. 49 [47-50]%, p < 0.001). After PP, a significant increase was observed in PaO2 (from 62 [56-71] to 82 [76-87] mmHg, p = 0.005) and rSO2 (from 53 [52-54]% to 60 [59-64]%, p = 0.005). The use of iNO increased PaO2 (from 65 [67-73] to 72 [67-73] mmHg, p = 0.015) and rSO2 (from 53 [51-56]% to 57 [55-59]%, p = 0.007). The use of ECCO2R decreased PaO2 (from 75 [75-79] to 64 [60-70] mmHg, p = 0.009), with reduction of rSO2 values (59 [56-65]% vs. 56 [53-62]%, p = 0.002). In the whole population, a significant relationship was found between SpO2 and rSO2 (R = 0.62, p < 0.001) and between PaO2 and rSO2 (R0 0.54, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Rescue therapies exert specific pathophysiological mechanisms, resulting in different effects on systemic and cerebral oxygenation in critically illCOVID-19patients with ARDS. Cerebral and systemic oxygenation are correlated. The choice of rescue strategy to be adopted should take into account both lung and brain needs. Registration The study protocol was approved by the ethics review board (Comitato Etico Regione Liguria, protocol n. CER Liguria: 23/2020).
Authors: Raghu R Seethala; Michael A Frakes; Michael N Cocchi; Jason E Cohen; James Dargin; Frank Friedman; Christian Grant; Adam Kaye; Susan R Wilcox Journal: Crit Care Explor Date: 2020-12-03
Authors: Carol Hodgson; Guillaume Carteaux; David V Tuxen; Andrew R Davies; Vin Pellegrino; Gilles Capellier; David J Cooper; Alistair Nichol Journal: Injury Date: 2012-12-21 Impact factor: 2.586
Authors: David K Menon; Jonathan P Coles; Arun K Gupta; Tim D Fryer; Peter Smielewski; Doris A Chatfield; Franklin Aigbirhio; Jeremy N Skepper; Pawan S Minhas; Peter J Hutchinson; T Adrian Carpenter; John C Clark; John D Pickard Journal: Crit Care Med Date: 2004-06 Impact factor: 7.598
Authors: Jostein Skjalg Hagemo; Arne Kristian Skulberg; Marius Rehn; Morten Valberg; Maiju Pesonen; Hans Julius Heimdal; Fridtjof Heyerdahl Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-05-27 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Denise Battaglini; Lavienraj Premraj; Samuel Huth; Jonathon Fanning; Glenn Whitman; Rakesh C Arora; Judith Bellapart; Diego Bastos Porto; Fabio Silvio Taccone; Jacky Y Suen; Gianluigi Li Bassi; John F Fraser; Rafael Badenes; Sung-Min Cho; Chiara Robba Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2022-04-14 Impact factor: 4.086
Authors: Maria C Barbosa-Silva; Maiara N Lima; Denise Battaglini; Chiara Robba; Paolo Pelosi; Patricia R M Rocco; Tatiana Maron-Gutierrez Journal: Crit Care Date: 2021-07-06 Impact factor: 9.097
Authors: Chiara Robba; Antonio Messina; Denise Battaglini; Lorenzo Ball; Iole Brunetti; Matteo Bassetti; Daniele R Giacobbe; Antonio Vena; Nicolo' Patroniti; Maurizio Cecconi; Basil F Matta; Xiuyun Liu; Patricia R M Rocco; Marek Czosnyka; Paolo Pelosi Journal: Front Neurol Date: 2021-06-16 Impact factor: 4.003