Cargando…

Closed-Loop Versus Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in COVID-19 ARDS

BACKGROUND: Lung-protective ventilation is key in bridging patients suffering from COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to recovery. However, resource and personnel limitations during pandemics complicate the implementation of lung-protective protocols. Automated ventilation modes may...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wendel Garcia, Pedro David, Hofmaenner, Daniel Andrea, Brugger, Silvio D., Acevedo, Claudio T., Bartussek, Jan, Camen, Giovanni, Bader, Patrick Raphael, Bruellmann, Gregor, Kattner, Johannes, Ganter, Christoph, Schuepbach, Reto Andreas, Buehler, Philipp Karl
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8442133/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34098803
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/08850666211024139
_version_ 1783752960438697984
author Wendel Garcia, Pedro David
Hofmaenner, Daniel Andrea
Brugger, Silvio D.
Acevedo, Claudio T.
Bartussek, Jan
Camen, Giovanni
Bader, Patrick Raphael
Bruellmann, Gregor
Kattner, Johannes
Ganter, Christoph
Schuepbach, Reto Andreas
Buehler, Philipp Karl
author_facet Wendel Garcia, Pedro David
Hofmaenner, Daniel Andrea
Brugger, Silvio D.
Acevedo, Claudio T.
Bartussek, Jan
Camen, Giovanni
Bader, Patrick Raphael
Bruellmann, Gregor
Kattner, Johannes
Ganter, Christoph
Schuepbach, Reto Andreas
Buehler, Philipp Karl
author_sort Wendel Garcia, Pedro David
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Lung-protective ventilation is key in bridging patients suffering from COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to recovery. However, resource and personnel limitations during pandemics complicate the implementation of lung-protective protocols. Automated ventilation modes may prove decisive in these settings enabling higher degrees of lung-protective ventilation than conventional modes. METHOD: Prospective study at a Swiss university hospital. Critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients were allocated, by study-blinded coordinating staff, to either closed-loop or conventional mechanical ventilation, based on mechanical ventilator availability. Primary outcome was the overall achieved percentage of lung-protective ventilation in closed-loop versus conventional mechanical ventilation, assessed minute-by-minute, during the initial 7 days and overall mechanical ventilation time. Lung-protective ventilation was defined as the combined target of tidal volume <8 ml per kg of ideal body weight, dynamic driving pressure <15 cmH(2)O, peak pressure <30 cmH(2)O, peripheral oxygen saturation ≥88% and dynamic mechanical power <17 J/min. RESULTS: Forty COVID-19 ARDS patients, accounting for 1,048,630 minutes (728 days) of cumulative mechanical ventilation, allocated to either closed-loop (n = 23) or conventional ventilation (n = 17), presenting with a median paO(2)/ FiO(2) ratio of 92 [72-147] mmHg and a static compliance of 18 [11-25] ml/cmH(2)O, were mechanically ventilated for 11 [4-25] days and had a 28-day mortality rate of 20%. During the initial 7 days of mechanical ventilation, patients in the closed-loop group were ventilated lung-protectively for 65% of the time versus 38% in the conventional group (Odds Ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.76-1.82; P < 0.001) and for 45% versus 33% of overall mechanical ventilation time (Odds Ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.21-1.23; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients during an early highpoint of the pandemic, mechanical ventilation using a closed-loop mode was associated with a higher degree of lung-protective ventilation than was conventional mechanical ventilation.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8442133
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84421332021-09-16 Closed-Loop Versus Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in COVID-19 ARDS Wendel Garcia, Pedro David Hofmaenner, Daniel Andrea Brugger, Silvio D. Acevedo, Claudio T. Bartussek, Jan Camen, Giovanni Bader, Patrick Raphael Bruellmann, Gregor Kattner, Johannes Ganter, Christoph Schuepbach, Reto Andreas Buehler, Philipp Karl J Intensive Care Med Original Research BACKGROUND: Lung-protective ventilation is key in bridging patients suffering from COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to recovery. However, resource and personnel limitations during pandemics complicate the implementation of lung-protective protocols. Automated ventilation modes may prove decisive in these settings enabling higher degrees of lung-protective ventilation than conventional modes. METHOD: Prospective study at a Swiss university hospital. Critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients were allocated, by study-blinded coordinating staff, to either closed-loop or conventional mechanical ventilation, based on mechanical ventilator availability. Primary outcome was the overall achieved percentage of lung-protective ventilation in closed-loop versus conventional mechanical ventilation, assessed minute-by-minute, during the initial 7 days and overall mechanical ventilation time. Lung-protective ventilation was defined as the combined target of tidal volume <8 ml per kg of ideal body weight, dynamic driving pressure <15 cmH(2)O, peak pressure <30 cmH(2)O, peripheral oxygen saturation ≥88% and dynamic mechanical power <17 J/min. RESULTS: Forty COVID-19 ARDS patients, accounting for 1,048,630 minutes (728 days) of cumulative mechanical ventilation, allocated to either closed-loop (n = 23) or conventional ventilation (n = 17), presenting with a median paO(2)/ FiO(2) ratio of 92 [72-147] mmHg and a static compliance of 18 [11-25] ml/cmH(2)O, were mechanically ventilated for 11 [4-25] days and had a 28-day mortality rate of 20%. During the initial 7 days of mechanical ventilation, patients in the closed-loop group were ventilated lung-protectively for 65% of the time versus 38% in the conventional group (Odds Ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.76-1.82; P < 0.001) and for 45% versus 33% of overall mechanical ventilation time (Odds Ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.21-1.23; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Among critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients during an early highpoint of the pandemic, mechanical ventilation using a closed-loop mode was associated with a higher degree of lung-protective ventilation than was conventional mechanical ventilation. SAGE Publications 2021-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8442133/ /pubmed/34098803 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/08850666211024139 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Research
Wendel Garcia, Pedro David
Hofmaenner, Daniel Andrea
Brugger, Silvio D.
Acevedo, Claudio T.
Bartussek, Jan
Camen, Giovanni
Bader, Patrick Raphael
Bruellmann, Gregor
Kattner, Johannes
Ganter, Christoph
Schuepbach, Reto Andreas
Buehler, Philipp Karl
Closed-Loop Versus Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in COVID-19 ARDS
title Closed-Loop Versus Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in COVID-19 ARDS
title_full Closed-Loop Versus Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in COVID-19 ARDS
title_fullStr Closed-Loop Versus Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in COVID-19 ARDS
title_full_unstemmed Closed-Loop Versus Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in COVID-19 ARDS
title_short Closed-Loop Versus Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in COVID-19 ARDS
title_sort closed-loop versus conventional mechanical ventilation in covid-19 ards
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8442133/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34098803
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/08850666211024139
work_keys_str_mv AT wendelgarciapedrodavid closedloopversusconventionalmechanicalventilationincovid19ards
AT hofmaennerdanielandrea closedloopversusconventionalmechanicalventilationincovid19ards
AT bruggersilviod closedloopversusconventionalmechanicalventilationincovid19ards
AT acevedoclaudiot closedloopversusconventionalmechanicalventilationincovid19ards
AT bartussekjan closedloopversusconventionalmechanicalventilationincovid19ards
AT camengiovanni closedloopversusconventionalmechanicalventilationincovid19ards
AT baderpatrickraphael closedloopversusconventionalmechanicalventilationincovid19ards
AT bruellmanngregor closedloopversusconventionalmechanicalventilationincovid19ards
AT kattnerjohannes closedloopversusconventionalmechanicalventilationincovid19ards
AT ganterchristoph closedloopversusconventionalmechanicalventilationincovid19ards
AT schuepbachretoandreas closedloopversusconventionalmechanicalventilationincovid19ards
AT buehlerphilippkarl closedloopversusconventionalmechanicalventilationincovid19ards