Respiratory physiology of COVID-19-induced respiratory failure compared to ARDS of other etiologies

Gennaro De Pascale, Andrea Urbani, Massimo Antonelli, Maria Grazia Bocci, Giuseppe Bello, Domenico Luca Grieco, Filippo Bongiovanni, Chen 5 6 Lu, S Menga 3 4 Luca, Salvatore Lucio Cutuli, Pintaudi 3 4 Gabriele, Simone Carelli, Michi 3 4 Teresa, Torrini 3 4 Flava, Lombardi 3 4 Gianmarco, Marco Anzellotti 3 4 Gian, Eloisa S Tanzarella, Antonio M Dell'Anna, M Maggiore 9 Salvatore, Brochard 5 6 Laurent

Research output: Contribution to journalMeeting Abstract

Abstract

Background: Whether respiratory physiology of COVID-19-induced respiratory failure is different from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) of other etiologies is unclear. We conducted a single-center study to describe respiratory mechanics and response to positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in COVID-19 ARDS and to compare COVID-19 patients to matched-control subjects with ARDS from other causes. Methods: Thirty consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to an intensive care unit in Rome, Italy, and fulfilling moderate-to-severe ARDS criteria were enrolled within 24 h from endotracheal intubation. Gas exchange, respiratory mechanics, and ventilatory ratio were measured at PEEP of 15 and 5 cmH2O. A single-breath derecruitment maneuver was performed to assess recruitability. After 1:1 matching based on PaO2/FiO2, FiO2, PEEP, and tidal volume, COVID-19 patients were compared to subjects affected by ARDS of other etiologies who underwent the same procedures in a previous study. Results: Thirty COVID-19 patients were successfully matched with 30 ARDS from other etiologies. At low PEEP, median [25th-75th percentiles] PaO2/FiO2 in the two groups was 119 mmHg [101-142] and 116 mmHg [87-154]. Average compliance (41 ml/cmH2O [32-52] vs. 36 ml/cmH2O [27-42], p = 0.045) and ventilatory ratio (2.1 [1.7-2.3] vs. 1.6 [1.4-2.1], p = 0.032) were slightly higher in COVID-19 patients. Inter-individual variability (ratio of standard deviation to mean) of compliance was 36% in COVID-19 patients and 31% in other ARDS. In COVID-19 patients, PaO2/FiO2 was linearly correlated with respiratory system compliance (r = 0.52 p = 0.003). High PEEP improved PaO2/FiO2 in both cohorts, but more remarkably in COVID-19 patients (p = 0.005). Recruitability was not different between cohorts (p = 0.39) and was highly inter-individually variable (72% in COVID-19 patients and 64% in ARDS from other causes). In COVID-19 patients, recruitability was independent from oxygenation and respiratory mechanics changes due to PEEP. Conclusions: Early after establishment of mechanical ventilation, COVID-19 patients follow ARDS physiology, with compliance reduction related to the degree of hypoxemia, and inter-individually variable respiratory mechanics and recruitability. Physiological differences between ARDS from COVID-19 and other causes appear small.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)---
JournalCritical Care
Publication statusPublished - 2020

Keywords

  • ARDS
  • Alveolar recruitment
  • COVID-19
  • PEEP
  • Respiratory mechanics

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Respiratory physiology of COVID-19-induced respiratory failure compared to ARDS of other etiologies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this