Search

COVID-19 infection may lead to acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS) where severe gas exchange derangements may be associated, at least in the early stages, only with minor pulmonary infiltrates. This may suggest that the shunt associated to the gasless lung parenchyma is not sufficient to explain CARDS hypoxemia. We designed an algorithm (VentriQlar), based on the same conceptual grounds described by J.B. West in 1969. We set 498 ventilation–perfusion (VA/Q) compartments and, after calculating their blood composition (PO2, PCO2, and pH), we randomly chose 106 combinations of five parameters controlling a bimodal distribution of blood flow. The solutions were accepted if the predicted PaO2 and PaCO2 were within 10% of the patient’s values. We assumed that the shunt fraction equaled the fraction of non-aerated lung tissue at the CT quantitative analysis. Five critically-ill patients later deceased were studied. The PaO2/FiO2 was 91.1 ± 18.6 mmHg and PaCO2 69.0 ± 16.1 mmHg. Cardiac output was 9.58 ± 0.99 L/min. The fraction of non-aerated tissue was 0.33 ± 0.06. The model showed that a large fraction of the blood flow was likely distributed in regions with very low VA/Q (Qmean = 0.06 ± 0.02) and a smaller fraction in regions with moderately high VA/Q. Overall LogSD, Q was 1.66 ± 0.14, suggestive of high VA/Q inequality. Our data suggest that shunt alone cannot completely account for the observed hypoxemia and a significant VA/Q inequality must be present in COVID-19. The high cardiac output and the extensive microthrombosis later found in the autopsy further support the hypothesis of a pathological perfusion of non/poorly ventilated lung tissue. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Hypothesizing that the non-aerated lung fraction as evaluated by the quantitative analysis of the lung computed tomography (CT) equals shunt (VA/Q = 0), we used a computational approach to estimate the magnitude of the ventilation–perfusion inequality in severe COVID-19. The results show that a severe hyperperfusion of poorly ventilated lung region is likely the cause of the observed hypoxemia. The extensive microthrombosis or abnormal vasodilation of the pulmonary circulation may represent the pathophysiological mechanism of such VA/Q distribution.

BackgroundExcessive tidal volume, respiratory rate, and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) are all potential causes of ventilator-induced lung injury, and all contribute to a single variable: the mechanical power. The authors aimed to determine whether high tidal volume or high respiratory rate or high PEEP at iso-mechanical power produce similar or different ventilator-induced lung injury.MethodsThree ventilatory strategies—high tidal volume (twice baseline functional residual capacity), high respiratory rate (40 bpm), and high PEEP (25 cm H2O)—were each applied at two levels of mechanical power (15 and 30 J/min) for 48 h in six groups of seven healthy female piglets (weight: 24.2 ± 2.0 kg, mean ± SD).ResultsAt iso-mechanical power, the high tidal volume groups immediately and sharply increased plateau, driving pressure, stress, and strain, which all further deteriorated with time. In high respiratory rate groups, they changed minimally at the beginning, but steadily increased during the 48 h. In contrast, after a sudden huge increase, they decreased with time in the high PEEP groups. End-experiment specific lung elastance was 6.5 ± 1.7 cm H2O in high tidal volume groups, 10.1 ± 3.9 cm H2O in high respiratory rate groups, and 4.5 ± 0.9 cm H2O in high PEEP groups. Functional residual capacity decreased and extravascular lung water increased similarly in these three categories. Lung weight, wet-to-dry ratio, and histologic scores were similar, regardless of ventilatory strategies and power levels. However, the alveolar edema score was higher in the low power groups. High PEEP had the greatest impact on hemodynamics, leading to increased need for fluids. Adverse events (early mortality and pneumothorax) also occurred more frequently in the high PEEP groups.ConclusionsDifferent ventilatory strategies, delivered at iso-power, led to similar anatomical lung injury. The different systemic consequences of high PEEP underline that ventilator-induced lung injury must be evaluated in the context of the whole body.Editor’s PerspectiveWhat We Already Know about This TopicWhat This Article Tells Us That Is New

Prone positioning is nowadays considered as one of the most effective strategies for patients with severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The evolution of the pathophysiological understanding surrounding the prone position closely follows the history of ARDS. At the beginning, the focus of the prone position was the improvement in oxygenation attributed to a perfusion redistribution. However, the mechanisms behind the prone position are more complex. Indeed, the positive effects on oxygenation and CO2 clearance of the prone position are to be ascribed to a more homogeneous inflation–ventilation, to the lung/thoracic shape mismatch, and to the change of chest wall elastance. In the past 20 years, five major trials have tried, starting from different theories, hypotheses, and designs, to demonstrate the effectiveness of the prone position, which finally found its definitive place among the different ARDS supportive therapies.

Critically ill COVID-19 patients have pathophysiological lung features characterized by perfusion abnormalities. However, to date no study has evaluated whether the changes in the distribution of pulmonary gas and blood volume are associated with the severity of gas-exchange impairment and the type of respiratory support (non-invasive versus invasive) in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia.This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study conducted in a tertiary care hospital in Northern Italy during the first pandemic wave. Pulmonary gas and blood distribution was assessed using a technique for quantitative analysis of dual-energy computed tomography. Lung aeration loss (reflected by percentage of normally aerated lung tissue) and the extent of gas:blood volume mismatch (percentage of non-aerated, perfused lung tissue-shunt; aerated, non-perfused dead space; and non-aerated/non-perfused regions) were evaluated in critically ill COVID-19 patients with different clinical severity as reflected by the need for non-invasive or invasive respiratory support.Thirty-five patients admitted to the intensive care unit between February 29th and May 30th, 2020 were included. Patients requiring invasive versus non-invasive mechanical ventilation had both a lower percentage of normally aerated lung tissue (median [interquartile range] 33% [24-49%] vs. 63% [44-68%], p 0.001); and a larger extent of gas:blood volume mismatch (43% [30-49%] vs. 25% [14-28%], p = 0.001), due to higher shunt (23% [15-32%] vs. 5% [2-16%], p = 0.001) and non-aerated/non perfused regions (5% [3-10%] vs. 1% [0-2%], p = 0.001). The PaOIn critically ill patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation and oxygenation impairment were associated with loss of aeration and the extent of gas:blood volume mismatch.

Rationale: Understanding the physiology of CO2 stores mobilization is a prerequisite for intermittent extracorporeal CO2 removal (ECCO2R) in patients with chronic hypercapnia.Objectives: To describ...

Excessive tidal volume, respiratory rate, and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) are all potential causes of ventilator-induced lung injury, and all contribute to a single variable: the mechanical power. The authors aimed to determine whether high tidal volume or high respiratory rate or high PEEP at iso-mechanical power produce similar or different ventilator-induced lung injury.Three ventilatory strategies-high tidal volume (twice baseline functional residual capacity), high respiratory rate (40 bpm), and high PEEP (25 cm H2O)-were each applied at two levels of mechanical power (15 and 30 J/min) for 48 h in six groups of seven healthy female piglets (weight: 24.2 ± 2.0 kg, mean ± SD).At iso-mechanical power, the high tidal volume groups immediately and sharply increased plateau, driving pressure, stress, and strain, which all further deteriorated with time. In high respiratory rate groups, they changed minimally at the beginning, but steadily increased during the 48 h. In contrast, after a sudden huge increase, they decreased with time in the high PEEP groups. End-experiment specific lung elastance was 6.5 ± 1.7 cm H2O in high tidal volume groups, 10.1 ± 3.9 cm H2O in high respiratory rate groups, and 4.5 ± 0.9 cm H2O in high PEEP groups. Functional residual capacity decreased and extravascular lung water increased similarly in these three categories. Lung weight, wet-to-dry ratio, and histologic scores were similar, regardless of ventilatory strategies and power levels. However, the alveolar edema score was higher in the low power groups. High PEEP had the greatest impact on hemodynamics, leading to increased need for fluids. Adverse events (early mortality and pneumothorax) also occurred more frequently in the high PEEP groups.Different ventilatory strategies, delivered at iso-power, led to similar anatomical lung injury. The different systemic consequences of high PEEP underline that ventilator-induced lung injury must be evaluated in the context of the whole body.

Esophageal pressure has been suggested as adequate surrogate of the pleural pressure. We investigate after lung surgery the determinants of the esophageal and intrathoracic pressures and their differences. The esophageal pressure (through esophageal balloon) and the intrathoracic/pleural pressure (through the chest tube on the surgery side) were measured after surgery in 28 patients immediately after lobectomy or wedge resection. Measurements were made in the nondependent lateral position (without or with ventilation of the operated lung) and in the supine position. In the lateral position with the nondependent lung, collapsed or ventilated, the differences between esophageal and pleural pressure amounted to 4.4 ± 1.6 and 5.1 ± 1.7 cmH2O. In the supine position, the difference amounted to 7.3 ± 2.8 cmH2O. In the supine position, the estimated compressive forces on the mediastinum were 10.5 ± 3.1 cmH2O and on the iso-gravitational pleural plane 3.2 ± 1.8 cmH2O. A simple model describing the roles of chest, lung, and pneumothorax volume matching on the pleural pressure genesis was developed; modeled pleural pressure = 1.0057 × measured pleural pressure + 0.6592 ( r2 = 0.8). Whatever the position and the ventilator settings, the esophageal pressure changed in a 1:1 ratio with the changes in pleural pressure. Consequently, chest wall elastance (Ecw) measured by intrathoracic (Ecw = ΔPpl/tidal volume) or esophageal pressure (Ecw = ΔPes/tidal volume) was identical in all the positions we tested. We conclude that esophageal and pleural pressures may be largely different depending on body position (gravitational forces) and lung-chest wall volume matching. Their changes, however, are identical. NEW & NOTEWORTHY Esophageal and pleural pressure changes occur at a 1:1 ratio, fully justifying the use of esophageal pressure to compute the chest wall elastance and the changes in pleural pressure and in lung stress. The absolute value of esophageal and pleural pressures may be largely different, depending on the body position (gravitational forces) and the lung-chest wall volume matching. Therefore, the absolute value of esophageal pressure should not be used as a surrogate of pleural pressure.