Search

Abstract Background We hypothesized that as CARDS may present different pathophysiological features than classic ARDS, the application of high levels of end-expiratory pressure is questionable. Our first aim was to investigate the effects of 5–15 cmH2O of PEEP on partitioned respiratory mechanics, gas exchange and dead space; secondly, we investigated whether respiratory system compliance and severity of hypoxemia could affect the response to PEEP on partitioned respiratory mechanics, gas exchange and dead space, dividing the population according to the median value of respiratory system compliance and oxygenation. Thirdly, we explored the effects of an additional PEEP selected according to the Empirical PEEP-FiO2 table of the EPVent-2 study on partitioned respiratory mechanics and gas exchange in a subgroup of patients. Methods Sixty-one paralyzed mechanically ventilated patients with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 were enrolled (age 60 [54–67] years, PaO2/FiO2 113 [79–158] mmHg and PEEP 10 [10–10] cmH2O). Keeping constant tidal volume, respiratory rate and oxygen fraction, two PEEP levels (5 and 15 cmH2O) were selected. In a subgroup of patients an additional PEEP level was applied according to an Empirical PEEP-FiO2 table (empirical PEEP). At each PEEP level gas exchange, partitioned lung mechanics and hemodynamic were collected. Results At 15 cmH2O of PEEP the lung elastance, lung stress and mechanical power were higher compared to 5 cmH2O. The PaO2/FiO2, arterial carbon dioxide and ventilatory ratio increased at 15 cmH2O of PEEP. The arterial–venous oxygen difference and central venous saturation were higher at 15 cmH2O of PEEP. Both the mechanics and gas exchange variables significantly increased although with high heterogeneity. By increasing the PEEP from 5 to 15 cmH2O, the changes in partitioned respiratory mechanics and mechanical power were not related to hypoxemia or respiratory compliance. The empirical PEEP was 18 ± 1 cmH2O. The empirical PEEP significantly increased the PaO2/FiO2 but also driving pressure, lung elastance, lung stress and mechanical power compared to 15 cmH2O of PEEP. Conclusions In COVID-19 ARDS during the early phase the effects of raising PEEP are highly variable and cannot easily be predicted by respiratory system characteristics, because of the heterogeneity of the disease.

Abstract Background The physiological dead space is a strong indicator of severity and outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The “ideal” alveolar PCO2, in equilibrium with pulmonary capillary PCO2, is a central concept in the physiological dead space measurement. As it cannot be measured, it is surrogated by arterial PCO2 which, unfortunately, may be far higher than ideal alveolar PCO2, when the right-to-left venous admixture is present. The “ideal” alveolar PCO2 equals the end-tidal PCO2 (PETCO2) only in absence of alveolar dead space. Therefore, in the perfect gas exchanger (alveolar dead space = 0, venous admixture = 0), the PETCO2/PaCO2 is 1, as PETCO2, PACO2 and PaCO2 are equal. Our aim is to investigate if and at which extent the PETCO2/PaCO2, a comprehensive meter of the “gas exchanger” performance, is related to the anatomo physiological characteristics in ARDS. Results We retrospectively studied 200 patients with ARDS. The source was a database in which we collected since 2003 all the patients enrolled in different CT scan studies. The PETCO2/PaCO2, measured at 5 cmH2O airway pressure, significantly decreased from mild to mild–moderate moderate–severe and severe ARDS. The overall populations was divided into four groups (~ 50 patients each) according to the quartiles of the PETCO2/PaCO2 (lowest ratio, the worst = group 1, highest ratio, the best = group 4). The progressive increase PETCO2/PaCO2 from quartile 1 to 4 (i.e., the progressive approach to the “perfect” gas exchanger value of 1.0) was associated with a significant decrease of non-aerated tissue, inohomogeneity index and increase of well-aerated tissue. The respiratory system elastance significantly improved from quartile 1 to 4, as well as the PaO2/FiO2 and PaCO2. The improvement of PETCO2/PaCO2 was also associated with a significant decrease of physiological dead space and venous admixture. When PEEP was increased from 5 to 15 cmH2O, the greatest improvement of non-aerated tissue, PaO2 and venous admixture were observed in quartile 1 of PETCO2/PaCO2 and the worst deterioration of dead space in quartile 4. Conclusion The ratio PETCO2/PaCO2 is highly correlated with CT scan, physiological and clinical variables. It appears as an excellent measure of the overall “gas exchanger” status.

Abstract The extent of ventilator‐induced lung injury may be related to the intensity of mechanical ventilation––expressed as mechanical power. In the present study, we investigated whether there is a safe threshold, below which lung damage is absent. Three groups of six healthy pigs (29.5 ± 2.5 kg) were ventilated prone for 48 h at mechanical power of 3, 7, or 12 J/min. Strain never exceeded 1.0. PEEP was set at 4 cmH2O. Lung volumes were measured every 12 h; respiratory, hemodynamics, and gas exchange variables every 6. End‐experiment histological findings were compared with a control group of eight pigs which did not undergo mechanical ventilation. Functional residual capacity decreased by 10.4% ± 10.6% and 8.1% ± 12.1% in the 7 J and 12 J groups (p = 0.017, p

Inflammation and oxidative stress characterize sepsis and determine its severity. In this study, we investigated the relationship between albumin oxidation and sepsis severity in a selected cohort of patients from the Albumin Italian Outcome Study (ALBIOS). A retrospective analysis was conducted on the oxidation forms of human albumin [human mercapto-albumin (HMA), human non-mercapto-albumin form 1 (HNA1) and human non-mercapto-albumin form 2 (HNA2)] in 60 patients with severe sepsis or septic shock and 21 healthy controls. The sepsis patients were randomized (1:1) to treatment with 20% albumin and crystalloid solution or crystalloid solution alone. The albumin oxidation forms were measured at day 1 and day 7. To assess the albumin oxidation forms as a function of oxidative stress, the 60 sepsis patients, regardless of the treatment, were grouped based on baseline sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score as surrogate marker of oxidative stress. At day 1, septic patients had significantly lower levels of HMA and higher levels of HNA1 and HNA2 than healthy controls. HMA and HNA1 concentrations were similar in patients treated with albumin or crystalloids at day 1, while HNA2 concentration was significantly greater in albumin-treated patients (p < 0.001). On day 7, HMA was significantly higher in albumin-treated patients, while HNA2 significantly increased only in the crystalloids-treated group, reaching values comparable with the albumin group. When pooling the septic patients regardless of treatment, albumin oxidation was similar across all SOFA groups at day 1, but at day 7 HMA was lower at higher SOFA scores. Mortality rate was independently associated with albumin oxidation levels measured at day 7 (HMA log-rank = 0.027 and HNA2 log-rank = 0.002), irrespective of treatment group. In adjusted regression analyses for 90-day mortality, this effect remained significant for HMA and HNA2. Our data suggest that the oxidation status of albumin is modified according to the time of exposure to oxidative stress (differences between day 1 and day 7). After 7 days of treatment, lower SOFA scores correlate with higher albumin antioxidant capacity. The trend toward a positive effect of albumin treatment, while not statistically significant, warrants further investigation.

Abstract Background Mechanical power is a summary variable including all the components which can possibly cause VILI (pressures, volume, flow, respiratory rate). Since the complexity of its mathematical computation is one of the major factors that delay its clinical use, we propose here a simple and easy to remember equation to estimate mechanical power under volume-controlled ventilation: Mechanical Power=VE×Peak Pressure+PEEP+F/620 $$ \mathrm{Mechanical}\ \mathrm{Power}=\frac{\mathrm{VE}\times \left(\mathrm{Peak}\ \mathrm{Pressure}+\mathrm{PEEP}+F/6\right)}{20} $$ where the mechanical power is expressed in Joules/minute, the minute ventilation (VE) in liters/minute, the inspiratory flow (F) in liters/minute, and peak pressure and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in centimeter of water. All the components of this equation are continuously displayed by any ventilator under volume-controlled ventilation without the need for clinician intervention. To test the accuracy of this new equation, we compared it with the reference formula of mechanical power that we proposed for volume-controlled ventilation in the past. The comparisons were made in a cohort of mechanically ventilated pigs (485 observations) and in a cohort of ICU patients (265 observations). Results Both in pigs and in ICU patients, the correlation between our equation and the reference one was close to the identity. Indeed, the R 2 ranged from 0.97 to 0.99 and the Bland-Altman showed small biases (ranging from + 0.35 to − 0.53 J/min) and proportional errors (ranging from + 0.02 to − 0.05). Conclusions Our new equation of mechanical power for volume-controlled ventilation represents a simple and accurate alternative to the more complex ones available to date. This equation does not need any clinical intervention on the ventilator (such as an inspiratory hold) and could be easily implemented in the software of any ventilator in volume-controlled mode. This would allow the clinician to have an estimation of mechanical power at a simple glance and thus increase the clinical consciousness of this variable which is still far from being used at the bedside. Our equation carries the same limitations of all other formulas of mechanical power, the most important of which, as far as it concerns VILI prevention, are the lack of normalization and its application to the whole respiratory system (including the chest wall) and not only to the lung parenchyma.