Background In acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), extravascular lung water index (EVLWi) and pulmonary vascular permeability index (PVPI) measured by transpulmonary thermodilution reflect the degree of lung injury. Whether EVLWi and PVPI are different between non-COVID-19 ARDS and the ARDS due to COVID-19 has never been reported. We aimed at comparing EVLWi, PVPI, respiratory mechanics and hemodynamics in patients with COVID-19 ARDS vs. ARDS of other origin. Methods Between March and October 2020, in an observational study conducted in intensive care units from three university hospitals, 60 patients with COVID-19-related ARDS monitored by transpulmonary thermodilution were compared to the 60 consecutive non-COVID-19 ARDS admitted immediately before the COVID-19 outbreak between December 2018 and February 2020. Results Driving pressure was similar between patients with COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS, at baseline as well as during the study period. Compared to patients without COVID-19, those with COVID-19 exhibited higher EVLWi, both at the baseline (17 (14–21) vs. 15 (11–19) mL/kg, respectively, p = 0.03) and at the time of its maximal value (24 (18–27) vs. 21 (15–24) mL/kg, respectively, p = 0.01). Similar results were observed for PVPI. In COVID-19 patients, the worst ratio between arterial oxygen partial pressure over oxygen inspired fraction was lower (81 (70–109) vs. 100 (80–124) mmHg, respectively, p = 0.02) and prone positioning and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) were more frequently used than in patients without COVID-19. COVID-19 patients had lower maximal lactate level and maximal norepinephrine dose than patients without COVID-19. Day-60 mortality was similar between groups (57% vs. 65%, respectively, p = 0.45). The maximal value of EVLWi and PVPI remained independently associated with outcome in the whole cohort. Conclusion Compared to ARDS patients without COVID-19, patients with COVID-19 had similar lung mechanics, but higher EVLWi and PVPI values from the beginning of the disease. This was associated with worse oxygenation and with more requirement of prone positioning and ECMO. This is compatible with the specific lung inflammation and severe diffuse alveolar damage related to COVID-19. By contrast, patients with COVID-19 had fewer hemodynamic derangement. Eventually, mortality was similar between groups. Trial registration number and date of registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04337983). Registered 30 March 2020—Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04337983.

Background Prone position is frequently used in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), especially during the Coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Our study investigated the ability of pulse pressure variation (PPV) and its changes during a tidal volume challenge (TVC) to assess preload responsiveness in ARDS patients under prone position. Methods This was a prospective study conducted in a 25-bed intensive care unit at a university hospital. We included patients with ARDS under prone position, ventilated with 6 mL/kg tidal volume and monitored by a transpulmonary thermodilution device. We measured PPV and its changes during a TVC (ΔPPV TVC6–8) after increasing the tidal volume from 6 to 8 mL/kg for one minute. Changes in cardiac index (CI) during a Trendelenburg maneuver (ΔCITREND) and during end-expiratory occlusion (EEO) at 8 mL/kg tidal volume (ΔCI EEO8) were recorded. Preload responsiveness was defined by both ΔCITREND ≥ 8% and ΔCI EEO8 ≥ 5%. Preload unresponsiveness was defined by both ΔCITREND < 8% and ΔCI EEO8 < 5%. Results Eighty-four sets of measurements were analyzed in 58 patients. Before prone positioning, the ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen was 104 ± 27 mmHg. At the inclusion time, patients were under prone position for 11 (2–14) hours. Norepinephrine was administered in 83% of cases with a dose of 0.25 (0.15–0.42) µg/kg/min. The positive end-expiratory pressure was 14 (11–16) cmH2O. The driving pressure was 12 (10–17) cmH2O, and the respiratory system compliance was 32 (22–40) mL/cmH2O. Preload responsiveness was detected in 42 cases. An absolute change in PPV ≥ 3.5% during a TVC assessed preload responsiveness with an area under the receiver operating characteristics (AUROC) curve of 0.94 ± 0.03 (sensitivity: 98%, specificity: 86%) better than that of baseline PPV (0.85 ± 0.05; p = 0.047). In the 56 cases where baseline PPV was inconclusive (≥ 4% and < 11%), ΔPPV TVC6–8 ≥ 3.5% still enabled to reliably assess preload responsiveness (AUROC: 0.91 ± 0.05, sensitivity: 97%, specificity: 81%; p < 0.01 vs. baseline PPV). Conclusion In patients with ARDS under low tidal volume ventilation during prone position, the changes in PPV during a TVC can reliably assess preload responsiveness without the need for cardiac output measurements. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04457739). Registered 30 June 2020 —Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT04457739

Background In patients on mechanical ventilation, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) can decrease cardiac output through a decrease in cardiac preload and/or an increase in right ventricular afterload. Increase in central blood volume by fluid administration or passive leg raising (PLR) may reverse these phenomena through an increase in cardiac preload and/or a reopening of closed lung microvessels. We hypothesized that a transient decrease in PEEP (PEEP-test) may be used as a test to detect volume responsiveness. Methods Mechanically ventilated patients with PEEP ≥ 10 cmH2O (“high level”) and without spontaneous breathing were prospectively included. Volume responsiveness was assessed by a positive PLR-test, defined as an increase in pulse-contour-derived cardiac index (CI) during PLR ≥ 10%. The PEEP-test consisted in reducing PEEP from the high level to 5 cmH2O for one minute. Pulse-contour-derived CI (PiCCO2) was monitored during PLR and the PEEP-test. Results We enrolled 64 patients among whom 31 were volume responsive. The median increase in CI during PLR was 14% (11–16%). The median PEEP at baseline was 12 (10–15) cmH2O and the PEEP-test resulted in a median decrease in PEEP of 7 (5–10) cmH2O, without difference between volume responsive and unresponsive patients. Among volume responsive patients, the PEEP-test induced a significant increase in CI of 16% (12–20%) (from 2.4 ± 0.7 to 2.9 ± 0.9 L/min/m2, p < 0.0001) in comparison with volume unresponsive patients. In volume unresponsive patients, PLR and the PEEP-test increased CI by 2% (1–5%) and 6% (3–8%), respectively. Volume responsiveness was predicted by an increase in CI > 8.6% during the PEEP-test with a sensitivity of 96.8% (95% confidence interval (95%CI): 83.3–99.9%) and a specificity of 84.9% (95%CI 68.1–94.9%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the PEEP-test for detecting volume responsiveness was 0.94 (95%CI 0.85–0.98) (p < 0.0001 vs. 0.5). Spearman’s correlation coefficient between the changes in CI induced by PLR and the PEEP-test was 0.76 (95%CI 0.63–0.85, p < 0.0001). Conclusions A CI increase > 8.6% during a PEEP-test, which consists in reducing PEEP to 5 cmH2O, reliably detects volume responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with a PEEP ≥ 10 cmH2O. Trial registration ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT 04,023,786). Registered July 18, 2019. Ethics Committee approval CPP Est III (N° 2018-A01599-46).

Background Usefulness of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in weaning patients with non-hypercapnic hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (hARF) is unclear. The study aims to assess in patients with non-hypercapnic hARF, the efficacy of NIV after early extubation, compared to standard weaning. Methods In this individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched EMBASE, Medline and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify potentially eligible randomized controlled trials published from database inception to October 2020. To be eligible, studies had to include patients treated with NIV after early extubation and compared to conventional weaning in adult non-hypercapnic hARF patients. Anonymized individual patient data from eligible studies were provided by study investigators. Using one-step and two-step meta-analysis models we tested the difference in total days spent on invasive ventilation. Results We screened 1605 records. Six studies were included in quantitative synthesis. Overall, 459 participants (mean [SD] age, 62 [15] years; 269 [59%] males) recovering from hARF were included in the analysis (233 in the intervention group and 226 controls). Participants receiving NIV had a shorter duration of invasive mechanical ventilation compared to control group (mean difference, − 3.43; 95% CI − 5.17 to − 1.69 days, p < 0.001), a shorter duration of total days spent on mechanical ventilation (mean difference, − 2.04; 95% CI − 3.82 to − 0.27 days, p = 0.024), a reduced risk of ventilatory associated pneumonia (odds ratio, 0.24; 95% CI 0.08 to 0.71, p = 0.014), a reduction of time spent in ICU (time ratio, 0.81; 95% CI 0.68 to 0.96, p = 0.015) and in-hospital (time ratio, 0.81; 95% CI 0.69 to 0.95, p = 0.010), with no difference in ICU mortality. Conclusions Although primary studies are limited, using an individual patient data metanalysis approach, NIV after early extubation appears useful in reducing total days spent on invasive mechanical ventilation. Trial registration The protocol was registered to PROSPERO database on 12/06/2019 and available at PROSPERO website inserting the study code i.e., CRD42019133837.

Background: In patients on mechanical ventilation, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) can decrease cardiac output through a decrease in cardiac preload and/or an increase in right ventricular afterload. Increase in central blood volume by fluid administration or passive leg raising (PLR) may reverse these phenomena through an increase in cardiac preload and/or a reopening of closed lung microvessels. We hypothesized that a transient decrease in PEEP (PEEP-test) may be used as a test to detect volume responsiveness. Methods: Mechanically ventilated patients with PEEP ≥10 cmH2O (“high level”) and without spontaneous breathing were prospectively included. Volume responsiveness was assessed by a positive PLR test, defined as an increase in pulse-contour-derived cardiac index (CI) during PLR ≥10%. The PEEP-test consisted in reducing PEEP from the high level to 5 cmH2O for one minute. Pulse-contour-derived CI (PiCCO2) was monitored during PLR and the PEEP-test. Results: We enrolled 64 patients among whom 31 were volume responsive. The median increase in CI during PLR was 14% (11%-16%). The median PEEP at baseline was 12 (10-15) cmH2O and the PEEP-test resulted in a median decrease in PEEP of 7 (5-10) cmH2O, without difference between volume responsive and unresponsive patients. Among volume responsive patients, the PEEP-test induced a significant increase in CI of 16% (12%-20%) (from 2.4±0.7 to 2.9±0.9 L/min/m2, p<0.0001) in comparison with volume unresponsive patients. In volume unresponsive patients, PLR and the PEEP-test increased CI by 2% (1%-5%) and 6% (3%-8%), respectively. Volume responsiveness was predicted by an increase in CI >8.6% during the PEEP-test with a sensitivity of 96.8% (95% confidence interval (95%CI): 83.3%-99.9%) and a specificity of 84.9% (95%CI: 68.1%-94.9%). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the PEEP-test for detecting volume responsiveness was 0.94 (95%CI: 0.85-0.98) (p<0.0001 vs. 0.5). Spearman’s correlation coefficient between the changes in CI induced by PLR and the PEEP-test was 0.76 (95%CI: 0.63-0.85, p<0.0001). Conclusions: A CI increase >8.6% during a PEEP-test, which consists in reducing PEEP to 5 cmH2O, reliably detects volume responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients with a PEEP ≥10 cmH2O. Trial registration ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT 04023786). Registered July 18, 2019. Ethics Committee approval CPP Est III (N° 2018-A01599-46)

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract