Cargando…

Evaluation of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Strategies in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019–Induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Background: Different positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) strategies are available for subjects with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. We aimed to evaluate three conventional PEEP strategies on their...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pan, Chun, Lu, Cong, She, Xiaobin, Ren, Haibo, Wei, Huazhang, Xu, Liang, Huang, Yingzi, Xia, Jia'an, Yu, Yuetian, Chen, Lu, Du, Bin, Qiu, Haibo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8329249/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34355001
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.637747
_version_ 1783732460242075648
author Pan, Chun
Lu, Cong
She, Xiaobin
Ren, Haibo
Wei, Huazhang
Xu, Liang
Huang, Yingzi
Xia, Jia'an
Yu, Yuetian
Chen, Lu
Du, Bin
Qiu, Haibo
author_facet Pan, Chun
Lu, Cong
She, Xiaobin
Ren, Haibo
Wei, Huazhang
Xu, Liang
Huang, Yingzi
Xia, Jia'an
Yu, Yuetian
Chen, Lu
Du, Bin
Qiu, Haibo
author_sort Pan, Chun
collection PubMed
description Background: Different positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) strategies are available for subjects with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. We aimed to evaluate three conventional PEEP strategies on their effects on respiratory mechanics, gas exchanges, and hemodynamics. Methods: This is a prospective, physiologic, multicenter study conducted in China. We recruited 20 intubated subjects with ARDS and confirmed COVID-19. We first set PEEP by the ARDSnet low PEEP–fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO(2)) table. After a recruitment maneuver, PEEP was set at 15, 10, and 5 cm H(2)O for 10 min, respectively. Among these three PEEP levels, best-compliance PEEP was the one providing the highest respiratory system compliance; best-oxygenation PEEP was the one providing the highest PaO(2) (partial pressure of arterial oxygen)/FIO(2). Results: At each PEEP level, we assessed respiratory mechanics, arterial blood gas, and hemodynamics. Among three PEEP levels, plateau pressure, driving pressure, mechanical power, and blood pressure improved with lower PEEP. The ARDSnet low PEEP–FIO(2) table and the best-oxygenation strategies provided higher PEEP than the best-compliance strategy (11 ± 6 cm H(2)O vs. 11 ± 3 cm H(2)O vs. 6 ± 2 cm H(2)O, p = 0.001), leading to higher plateau pressure, driving pressure, and mechanical power. The three PEEP strategies were not significantly different in gas exchange. The subgroup analysis showed that three PEEP strategies generated different effects in subjects with moderate or severe ARDS (n = 12) but not in subjects with mild ARDS (n = 8). Conclusions: In our cohort with COVID-19–induced ARDS, the ARDSnet low PEEP/FIO(2) table and the best-oxygenation strategies led to higher PEEP and potentially higher risk of ventilator-induced lung injury than the best-compliance strategy. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04359251.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8329249
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83292492021-08-04 Evaluation of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Strategies in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019–Induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Pan, Chun Lu, Cong She, Xiaobin Ren, Haibo Wei, Huazhang Xu, Liang Huang, Yingzi Xia, Jia'an Yu, Yuetian Chen, Lu Du, Bin Qiu, Haibo Front Med (Lausanne) Medicine Background: Different positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) strategies are available for subjects with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. We aimed to evaluate three conventional PEEP strategies on their effects on respiratory mechanics, gas exchanges, and hemodynamics. Methods: This is a prospective, physiologic, multicenter study conducted in China. We recruited 20 intubated subjects with ARDS and confirmed COVID-19. We first set PEEP by the ARDSnet low PEEP–fraction of inspired oxygen (FIO(2)) table. After a recruitment maneuver, PEEP was set at 15, 10, and 5 cm H(2)O for 10 min, respectively. Among these three PEEP levels, best-compliance PEEP was the one providing the highest respiratory system compliance; best-oxygenation PEEP was the one providing the highest PaO(2) (partial pressure of arterial oxygen)/FIO(2). Results: At each PEEP level, we assessed respiratory mechanics, arterial blood gas, and hemodynamics. Among three PEEP levels, plateau pressure, driving pressure, mechanical power, and blood pressure improved with lower PEEP. The ARDSnet low PEEP–FIO(2) table and the best-oxygenation strategies provided higher PEEP than the best-compliance strategy (11 ± 6 cm H(2)O vs. 11 ± 3 cm H(2)O vs. 6 ± 2 cm H(2)O, p = 0.001), leading to higher plateau pressure, driving pressure, and mechanical power. The three PEEP strategies were not significantly different in gas exchange. The subgroup analysis showed that three PEEP strategies generated different effects in subjects with moderate or severe ARDS (n = 12) but not in subjects with mild ARDS (n = 8). Conclusions: In our cohort with COVID-19–induced ARDS, the ARDSnet low PEEP/FIO(2) table and the best-oxygenation strategies led to higher PEEP and potentially higher risk of ventilator-induced lung injury than the best-compliance strategy. Clinical Trial Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT04359251. Frontiers Media S.A. 2021-07-20 /pmc/articles/PMC8329249/ /pubmed/34355001 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.637747 Text en Copyright © 2021 Pan, Lu, She, Ren, Wei, Xu, Huang, Xia, Yu, Chen, Du and Qiu. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Medicine
Pan, Chun
Lu, Cong
She, Xiaobin
Ren, Haibo
Wei, Huazhang
Xu, Liang
Huang, Yingzi
Xia, Jia'an
Yu, Yuetian
Chen, Lu
Du, Bin
Qiu, Haibo
Evaluation of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Strategies in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019–Induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
title Evaluation of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Strategies in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019–Induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
title_full Evaluation of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Strategies in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019–Induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
title_fullStr Evaluation of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Strategies in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019–Induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Strategies in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019–Induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
title_short Evaluation of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Strategies in Patients With Coronavirus Disease 2019–Induced Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
title_sort evaluation of positive end-expiratory pressure strategies in patients with coronavirus disease 2019–induced acute respiratory distress syndrome
topic Medicine
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8329249/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34355001
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2021.637747
work_keys_str_mv AT panchun evaluationofpositiveendexpiratorypressurestrategiesinpatientswithcoronavirusdisease2019inducedacuterespiratorydistresssyndrome
AT lucong evaluationofpositiveendexpiratorypressurestrategiesinpatientswithcoronavirusdisease2019inducedacuterespiratorydistresssyndrome
AT shexiaobin evaluationofpositiveendexpiratorypressurestrategiesinpatientswithcoronavirusdisease2019inducedacuterespiratorydistresssyndrome
AT renhaibo evaluationofpositiveendexpiratorypressurestrategiesinpatientswithcoronavirusdisease2019inducedacuterespiratorydistresssyndrome
AT weihuazhang evaluationofpositiveendexpiratorypressurestrategiesinpatientswithcoronavirusdisease2019inducedacuterespiratorydistresssyndrome
AT xuliang evaluationofpositiveendexpiratorypressurestrategiesinpatientswithcoronavirusdisease2019inducedacuterespiratorydistresssyndrome
AT huangyingzi evaluationofpositiveendexpiratorypressurestrategiesinpatientswithcoronavirusdisease2019inducedacuterespiratorydistresssyndrome
AT xiajiaan evaluationofpositiveendexpiratorypressurestrategiesinpatientswithcoronavirusdisease2019inducedacuterespiratorydistresssyndrome
AT yuyuetian evaluationofpositiveendexpiratorypressurestrategiesinpatientswithcoronavirusdisease2019inducedacuterespiratorydistresssyndrome
AT chenlu evaluationofpositiveendexpiratorypressurestrategiesinpatientswithcoronavirusdisease2019inducedacuterespiratorydistresssyndrome
AT dubin evaluationofpositiveendexpiratorypressurestrategiesinpatientswithcoronavirusdisease2019inducedacuterespiratorydistresssyndrome
AT qiuhaibo evaluationofpositiveendexpiratorypressurestrategiesinpatientswithcoronavirusdisease2019inducedacuterespiratorydistresssyndrome