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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |