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