Transpulmonary pressure in SARS-CoV-2-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: a single-center observational study

Abstract Background Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) associated coagulopathy (CAC) leads to thromboembolic events in a high number of critically ill COVID-19 patients. However, specific diagnostic or therapeutic algorithms for CAC have not been established. In the current study, we analyzed coagulation abnormalities with point-of-care testing (POCT) and their relation to hemostatic complications in patients suffering from COVID-19 induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS). Our hypothesis was that specific diagnostic patterns can be identified in patients with COVID-19 induced ARDS at risk of thromboembolic complications utilizing POCT. Methods This is a single-center, retrospective observational study. Longitudinal data from 247 rotational thromboelastometries (Rotem®) and 165 impedance aggregometries (Multiplate®) were analysed in 18 patients consecutively admitted to the ICU with a COVID-19 induced ARDS between March 12th to June 30th, 2020. Results Median age was 61 years (IQR: 51–69). Median PaO2/FiO2 on admission was 122 mmHg (IQR: 87–189), indicating moderate to severe ARDS. Any form of hemostatic complication occurred in 78 % of the patients with deep vein/arm thrombosis in 39 %, pulmonary embolism in 22 %, and major bleeding in 17 %. In Rotem® elevated A10 and maximum clot firmness (MCF) indicated higher clot strength. The delta between EXTEM A10 minus FIBTEM A10 (ΔA10) > 30 mm, depicting the sole platelet-part of clot firmness, was associated with a higher risk of thromboembolic events (OD: 3.7; 95 %CI 1.3–10.3; p = 0.02). Multiplate® aggregometry showed hypoactive platelet function. There was no correlation between single Rotem® and Multiplate® parameters at intensive care unit (ICU) admission and thromboembolic or bleeding complications. Conclusions Rotem® and Multiplate® results indicate hypercoagulability and hypoactive platelet dysfunction in COVID-19 induced ARDS but were all in all poorly related to hemostatic complications..

Download Full-text

Early effects of ventilatory rescue therapies on systemic and cerebral oxygenation in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a prospective observational study

Critical Care ◽

10.1186/s13054-021-03537-1 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 25 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Chiara Robba ◽

◽

Lorenzo Ball ◽

Denise Battaglini ◽

Danilo Cardim ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Carbon Dioxide ◽

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽

Observational Study ◽

Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽

Respiratory Distress ◽

Prospective Observational Study ◽

Distress Syndrome ◽

Cerebral Oxygenation ◽

Arterial Blood ◽

Early Effects

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).

Download Full-text

An assessment of esophageal balloon use for the titration of airway pressure release ventilation and controlled mechanical ventilation in a patient with extrapulmonary acute respiratory distress syndrome: a case report

Journal of Medical Case Reports ◽

10.1186/s13256-021-02984-2 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 15 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Óscar Arellano-Pérez ◽

Felipe Castillo Merino ◽

Roberto Torres-Tejeiro ◽

Sebastián Ugarte Ubiergo

Keyword(s):

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽

Respiratory Distress Syndrome ◽

Respiratory Distress ◽

Airway Pressure ◽

Distress Syndrome ◽

Transpulmonary Pressure ◽

Airway Pressure Release Ventilation ◽

Pressure Release ◽

Esophageal Balloon ◽

Pressure Release Ventilation

Abstract Background Esophageal pressure measurement is a minimally invasive monitoring process that assesses respiratory mechanics in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Airway pressure release ventilation is a relatively new positive pressure ventilation modality, characterized by a series of advantages in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Case presentation We report a case of a 55-year-old chilean female, with preexisting hypertension and recurrent renal colic who entered the cardiosurgical intensive care unit with signs and symptoms of urinary sepsis secondary to a right-sided obstructive urolithiasis. At the time of admission, the patient showed signs of urinary sepsis, a poor overall condition, hemodynamic instability, tachycardia, hypotension, and needed vasoactive drugs. Initially the patient was treated with volume control ventilation. Then, ventilation was with conventional ventilation parameters described by the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network. However, hemodynamic complications led to reduced airway pressure. Later she presented intraabdominal hypertension that compromised the oxygen supply and her ventilation management. Considering these records, an esophageal manometry was used to measure distending lung pressure, that is, transpulmonary pressure, to protect lungs. Initial use of the esophageal balloon was in a volume-controlled modality (deep sedation), which allowed the medical team to perform inspiratory and expiratory pause maneuvers to monitor transpulmonary plateau pressure as a substitute for pulmonary distension and expiratory pause and determine transpulmonary positive end-expiratory pressure. On the third day of mechanical respiration, the modality was switched to airway pressure release ventilation. The use of airway pressure release ventilation was associated with reduced hemodynamic complications and kept transpulmonary pressure between 0 and 20 cmH2O despite a sustained high positive end-expiratory pressure of 20 cmH2O. Conclusion The application of this technique is shown in airway pressure release ventilation with spontaneous ventilation, which is then compared with a controlled modality that requires a lesser number of sedative doses and vasoactive drugs, without altering the criteria for lung protection as guided by esophageal manometry.

Download Full-text