COVID-19 Related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Research Articles

Prolonged Noninvasive Respiratory Support Before Intubation Is Associated With Increased Duration of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

Prolonged Noninvasive Respiratory Support Before Intubation Is Associated With Increased Duration of Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation.

Association Between Vaccination Status and Mortality Among Intubated Patients With COVID-19–Related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome

Although vaccination substantially reduces the risk of severe COVID-19, it is yet unknown whether vaccinated patients who develop COVID-19 and require invasive mechanical ventilation have lower mortality than controls. To examine the association between COVID-19 vaccination status and mortality among critically ill patients who require invasive mechanical ventilation owing to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) related to COVID-19. This multicenter cohort study was performed between June 7, 2021, and February 1, 2022, among 265 consecutive adult patients with COVID-19 in academic intensive care units who underwent invasive mechanical ventilation owing to ARDS. Patients in the full vaccination group had completed the primary COVID-19 vaccination series more than 14 days but less than 5 months prior to intubation. This time threshold was chosen because guidelines from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend a booster dose beyond that time. The remaining patients (ie, those who were unvaccinated, partially vaccinated, or fully vaccinated <14 days or >5 months before intubation) comprised the control group. The primary outcome was time from intubation to all-cause intensive care unit mortality. A Cox proportional hazards regression model including vaccination status, age, comorbid conditions, and baseline Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score on the day of intubation was used. A total of 265 intubated patients (170 men [64.2%]; median age, 66.0 years [IQR, 58.0-76.0 years]; 26 [9.8%] in the full vaccination group) were included in the study. A total of 20 patients (76.9%) in the full vaccination group received the BNT162b2 vaccine, and the remaining 6 (23.1%) received the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine. Patients in the full vaccination group were older (median age, 72.5 years [IQR, 62.8-80.0 years] vs 66.0 years [IQR, 57.0-75.0 years]) and more likely to have comorbid conditions (24 of 26 [92.3%] vs 160 of 239 [66.9%]), including malignant neoplasm (6 of 26 [23.1%] vs 18 of 239 [7.5%]), than those in the control group. Full vaccination status was significantly associated with lower mortality compared with controls (16 of 26 patients [61.5%] died in the full vaccination group vs 163 of 239 [68.2%] in the control group; hazard ratio, 0.55 [95% CI, 0.32-0.94]; P = .03). In this cohort study, full vaccination status was associated with lower mortality compared with controls, which suggests that vaccination might be beneficial even among patients who were intubated owing to COVID-19-related ARDS. These results may inform discussions with families about prognosis.

METABOLOMIC PROFILING AND PROGNOSTICATION IN COVID-19-RELATED ARDS

METABOLOMIC PROFILING AND PROGNOSTICATION IN COVID-19-RELATED ARDS

VACCINE-INDUCED ANTIBODY DEPENDENT ENHANCEMENT IN COVID-19

VACCINE-INDUCED ANTIBODY DEPENDENT ENHANCEMENT IN COVID-19

Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation circuits in parallel for refractory hypoxemia in patients with COVID-19

ObjectivesRefractory hypoxemia can occur in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome from COVID-19 despite support with venovenous (VV) extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Parallel ECMO circuits can be used to increase physiologic support. We report our clinical experience using ECMO circuits in parallel for select patients with persistent severe hypoxemia despite the use of a single ECMO circuit. MethodsWe performed a retrospective cohort study of all patients with COVID–19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome who received VV-ECMO with an additional circuit in parallel at Vanderbilt University Medical Center between March 1, 2020, and March 1, 2022. We report demographic characteristics and clinical characteristics including ECMO settings, mechanical ventilator settings, use of adjunctive therapies, and arterial blood gas results after initial cannulation, before and after receipt of a second ECMO circuit in parallel, and before removal of the circuit in parallel, and outcomes. ResultsOf 84 patients with COVID-19 who received VV-ECMO during the study period, 22 patients (26.2%) received a circuit in parallel. The median duration of ECMO was 40.0 days (interquartile range, 31.6-53.1 days), of which 19.0 days (interquartile range, 13.0-33.0 days) were spent with a circuit in parallel. Of the 22 patients who received a circuit in parallel, 16 (72.7%) survived to hospital discharge and 6 (27.3%) died before discharge. ConclusionsIn select patients, the additional use of an ECMO circuit in parallel can increase ECMO blood flow and improve oxygenation while allowing for lung-protective mechanical ventilation and excellent outcomes.

Venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in patients with COVID-19 respiratory failure: A multicenter study

ObjectiveThe COVID-19 pandemic presents a high mortality rate amongst patients who develop severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The purpose of this study was to evaluate the outcomes of venovenous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV-ECMO) in COVID–19-related ARDS and identify the patients who benefit the most from this procedure. MethodsAdult patients with COVID-19 and severe ARDS requiring VV-ECMO support at 4 academic institutions between March and October 2020 were included. Data were collected through retrospective chart reviews. Bivariate and multivariable analyses were performed with the primary outcome of in-hospital mortality. ResultsFifty-one consecutive patients underwent VV-ECMO with a mean age of 50.4 years; 64.7% were men. Survival to hospital discharge was 62.8%. Median intensive care unit and hospitalization duration were 27.4 days (interquartile range [IQR], 17-37 days) and 34.5 days (IQR, 23-43 days), respectively. Survivors and nonsurvivors had a median ECMO cannulation time of 11 days (IQR, 8-18) and 17 days (IQR, 12-25 days). The average postdecannulation length of stay was 17.5 days (IQR, 12.4-25 days) for survivors and 0 days for nonsurvivors (IQR, 0-6 days). Only 1 nonsurvivor was able to be decannulated. Clinical characteristics associated with mortality between nonsurviors and survivors included increasing age (P = .0048), hemorrhagic stroke (P = .0014), and postoperative dialysis (P = .0013) were associated with mortality in a bivariate model and retained statistical significance in a multivariable model. ConclusionsThis multicenter study confirms the effectiveness of VV-ECMO in selected critically ill patients with COVID–19-related severe ARDS. The survival of these patients is comparable to non-COVID–19-related ARDS.

Evolution of respiratory system compliance and potential for lung recruitment in COVID-19–induced acute respiratory distress syndrome

BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been frequently complicated by severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with prolonged invasive ventilation. While respiratory system compliance and lung recruitability have been described within the first days after ICU admission, data about their longitudinal changes are still limited. Therefore, we conducted this study to assess the evolution of respiratory system compliance and lung recruitability in patients with COVID-19–related ARDS. MethodWe conducted a prospective single-center study in patients admitted for COVID-19–related ARDS during the first wave of the pandemic, from March 16, 2020 to April 10, 2020. Respiratory system compliance was calculated daily at clinical positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) during passive breathing. The potential for lung recruitment was assessed by measuring the volume derecruited between PEEP 15 cmH2O and 5 cmH2O, and using the calculation of the recruitment-to-inflation ratio (R/I ratio). Recruitable lung was considered when the R/I ratio was at least 0.5. The primary outcome was the evolution of respiratory mechanics over time. The secondary outcome was the evolution of lung recruitability over time. ResultsThirty-two patients were included in this study. The respiratory mechanics were assessed 222 times (7 ± 5 times per patient). Respiratory system compliance at clinical PEEP was 29.1 mL/cmH2O (interquartile range [IQR]: 24.1–33.9 mL/cmH2O) and decreased significantly over time (P <0.0001). Lung recruitability was assessed in 22 out of the 32 patients (60 assessments). The median volume derecruited between PEEP 15 cmH2O and 5 cmH2O was 246.8 mL (IQR: 180.8–352.2 mL) and the median R/I ratio was 0.56 (IQR: 0.39–0.73). Neither changed significantly over time. The proportion of patients with recruitable lung was 50.0% (6/12) within the first 3 days after intubation, 69.2% (9/13) between day 4 and day 7, and 66.7% (8/12) after day 7 (P=0.7934). ConclusionsIn our cohort, respiratory system compliance was low and decreased over time. The potential for lung recruitment was high and persisted despite prolonged mechanical ventilation, suggesting that maintaining high PEEP levels in the later course of COVID-19 could be adequate.

Predictive ability of viscoelastic testing using ClotPro® for short-term outcome in patients with severe Covid-19 ARDS with or without ECMO therapy: a retrospective study

BackgroundSARS-CoV-2 infections are suspected to trigger the coagulation system through various pathways leading to a high incidence of thromboembolic complications, hypercoagulation and impaired fibrinolytic capacity were previously identified as potentially mechanisms. A reliable diagnostic tool for detecting both is still under discussion. This retrospective study is aimed to examine the prognostic relevance of early viscoelastic testing compared to conventional laboratory tests in COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).MethodsAll mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 related ARDS treated in our intensive care unit (ICU) between January and March 2021 were included in this study. Viscoelastic testing (VET) was performed using the ClotPro® system after admission to our ICU. Prevalence of thromboembolic events was observed by standardized screening for venous and pulmonary thromboembolism using complete compression ultrasound and thoracic computed tomography pulmonary angiography at ICU admission, respectively. We examined associations between the severity of ARDS at admission to our ICU, in-hospital mortality and the incidence of thromboembolic events comparing conventional laboratory analysis and VET. ECMO related coagulopathy was investigated in a subgroup analysis. The data were analyzed using the Mann–Whitney U test.ResultsOf 55 patients enrolled in this study, 22 patients required treatment with ECMO. Thromboembolic complications occurred in 51% of all patients. Overall hospital mortality was 55%. In patients with thromboembolic complications, signs of reduced fibrinolytic capacity could be detected in the TPA assay with prolonged lysis time, median 460 s (IQR 350–560) vs 359 s (IQR 287–521, p = 0.073). Patients with moderate to severe ARDS at admission to our ICU showed increased maximum clot firmness as a sign of hypercoagulation in the EX-test (70 vs 67 mm, p < 0.05), FIB-test (35 vs 24 mm, p < 0.05) and TPA-test (52 vs 36 mm, p < 0.05) as well as higher values of inflammatory markers (CRP, PCT and IL6). ECMO patients suffered more frequently from bleeding complications (32% vs 15%).ConclusionAlthough, the predictive value for thromboembolic complications or mortality seems limited, point-of-care viscoelastic coagulation testing might be useful in detecting hypercoagulable states and impaired fibrinolysis in critically ill COVID-19 ARDS patients and could be helpful in identifying patients with a potentially very severe course of the disease.

A narrative review of COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS): "typical" or "atypical" ARDS?

Background and ObjectiveThe coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) is highly infectious and mainly involves the respiratory system, with some patients rapidly progress to acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), which is the leading cause of death in COVID-19 patients. Hence, fully understanding the features of COVID-19-related ARDS (CARDS) and early management of this disease would improve the prognosis and reduce the mortality of severe COVID-19. With the development of recent studies which have focused on CARDS, whether CARDS is “typical” or “atypical” ARDS has become a hotly debated topic.MethodsWe searched for relevant literature from 1999 to 2021 published in PubMed by using the following keywords and their combinations: “COVID-19”, “CARDS”, “ARDS”, “pathophysiological mechanism”, “clinical manifestations”, “prognosis”, and “clinical trials”. Then, we analyzed, compared and highlighted the differences between classic ARDS and CARDS from all of the aspects above.Key Content and FindingsClassical ARDS commonly occurs within 1 week after a predisposing cause, yet the median time from symptoms onset to CARDS is longer than that of classical ARDS, manifesting within a period of 9.0–12.0 days. Although the lung mechanics exhibited in CARDS grossly match those of classical ARDS, there are some atypical manifestations of CARDS: the severity of hypoxemia seemed not to be proportional to injury of lung mechanics and an increase of thrombogenic processes. Meanwhile, some patients’ symptoms do not correspond with the extent of the organic injury: a chest computed tomography (CT) will reveal the severe and diffuse lung injuries, yet the clinical presentations of patients can be mild.ConclusionsDespite the differences between the CARDS and ARDS, in addition to the treatment of antivirals, clinicians should continue to follow the accepted evidence-based framework for managing all ARDS cases, including CARDS.

Feasibility of a New Lung Ultrasound Protocol to Determine the Extent of Lung Injury in COVID-19 Pneumonia

BackgroundLung ultrasound (LUS) is useful to diagnose and assess the severity of pulmonary lesions during CoViD-19 related acute respiratory distress syndrome (CoARDS). A conventional LUS score is proposed to measure the loss of aeration during CoARDS. However, this score was validated during the pre-COVID-19 era in ARDS patients in intensive care and does not consider the differences with CoARDS. An alternative LUS method is based on grading the percentage of extension of the typical signs of COVID-19 pneumonia on the lung surface (LUSext).Research questionIs LUSext feasible in COVID-19 patients at onset of disease and does it correlate with the volumetric measure of severity of COVID-19 pneumonia lesions at computed tomography (CTvol)?Study design and methodThis observational study enrolled a convenience sampling of patients in the emergency department with confirmed COVID-19 and demonstration of pneumonia at bedside LUS and CT scan. LUSext was visually quantified. All CT studies were retrospectively analyzed by a specifically designed software to calculate the CTvol. The correlation between LUSext and CTvol, and the correlations of each score with PaO2/FiO2 ratio (P/F) were calculated.ResultsWe analyzed data from 179 patients. Feasibility of LUSext was 100%. Time to perform LUS scan was 5 + 1.5 mins. LUSext and CTvol were positively correlated, with R = 0.67, P < 0.0001. Both LUSext and CTvol showed negative correlation with P/F, respectively with R = -0.66 and R = -0.54; P <0.0001.InterpretationLUSext is a valid measure of the severity of the lesions when compared to CT scan. Not only are LUSext and CTvol correlated, but they also have similar inverse correlation with the severity of respiratory failure. LUSext is a practical and simple bedside measure of the severity of pneumonia in CoARDS, whose clinical and prognostic impact need to be further investigated.

Human placenta-derived mesenchymal stem cells transplantation in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by COVID-19 (phase I clinical trial): safety profile assessment

BackgroundHigh morbidity and mortality rates of the COVID-19 pandemic have made it a global health priority. Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is one of the most important causes of death in COVID-19 patients. Mesenchymal stem cells have been the subject of many clinical trials for the treatment of ARDS because of their immunomodulatory, anti-inflammatory, and regenerative potentials. The aim of this phase I clinical trial was the safety assessment of allogeneic placenta-derived mesenchymal stem cells (PL-MSCs) intravenous injection in patients with ARDS induced by COVID-19.MethodsWe enrolled 20 patients suffering from ARDS caused by COVID-19 who had been admitted to the intensive care unit. PL-MSCs were isolated and propagated using a xeno-free/GMP compliant protocol. Each patient in the treatment group (N = 10) received standard treatment and a single dose of 1 × 106 cells/kg PL-MSCs intravenously. The control groups (N = 10) only received the standard treatment. Clinical signs and laboratory tests were evaluated in all participants at the baseline and during 28 days follow-ups.ResultsNo adverse events were observed in the PL-MSC group. Mean length of hospitalization, serum oxygen saturation, and other clinical and laboratory parameters were not significantly different in the two groups (p > 0.05).ConclusionOur results demonstrated that intravenous administration of PL-MSCs in patients with COVID-19 related ARDS is safe and feasible. Further studies whit higher cell doses and repeated injections are needed to evaluate the efficacy of this treatment modality.Trial registration: Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT); IRCT20200621047859N4. Registered 1 March 2021, https://en.irct.ir/trial/52947.

Clinical decision analysis of elective delivery vs expectant management for pregnant individuals with COVID-19–related acute respiratory distress syndrome

BACKGROUNDPregnant individuals are vulnerable to COVID-19–related acute respiratory distress syndrome. There is a lack of high-quality evidence on whether elective delivery or expectant management leads to better maternal and neonatal outcomes.OBJECTIVEThis study aimed to determine whether elective delivery or expectant management are associated with higher quality-adjusted life expectancy for pregnant individuals with COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome and their neonates.STUDY DESIGNWe performed a clinical decision analysis using a patient-level model in which we simulatedpregnant individuals and their unborn children. We used a patient-level model with parallel open-cohort structure, daily cycle length, continuous discounting, lifetime horizon, sensitivity analyses for key parameter values, and 1000 iterations for quantification of uncertainty. We simulated pregnant individuals at 32 weeks of gestation, invasively ventilated because of COVID-19–related acute respiratory distress syndrome. In the elective delivery strategy, pregnant individuals received immediate cesarean delivery. In the expectant management strategy, pregnancies continued until spontaneous labor or obstetrical decision to deliver. For both pregnant individuals and neonates, model outputs were hospital or perinatal survival, life expectancy, and quality-adjusted life expectancy denominated in years, summarized by the mean and 95% credible interval. Maternal utilities incorporated neonatal outcomes in accordance with best practices in perinatal decision analysis.RESULTSModel outputs for pregnant individuals were similar when comparing elective delivery at 32 weeks’ gestation with expectant management, including hospital survival (87.1% vs 87.4%), life-years (difference, −0.1; 95% credible interval, −1.4 to 1.1), and quality-adjusted life expectancy denominated in years (difference, −0.1; 95% credible interval, −1.3 to 1.1). For neonates, elective delivery at 32 weeks’ gestation was estimated to lead to a higher perinatal survival (98.4% vs 93.2%; difference, 5.2%; 95% credible interval, 3.5–7), similar life-years (difference, 0.9; 95% credible interval, −0.9 to 2.8), and higher quality-adjusted life expectancy denominated in years (difference, 1.3; 95% credible interval, 0.4–2.2). For pregnant individuals, elective delivery was not superior to expectant management across a range of scenarios between 28 and 34 weeks of gestation. Elective delivery in cases where intrauterine death or maternal mortality were more likely resulted in higher neonatal quality-adjusted life expectancy, as did elective delivery at 30 weeks' gestation (difference, 1.1 years; 95% credible interval, 0.1 – 2.1) despite higher long-term complications (4.3% vs 0.5%; difference, 3.7%; 95% credible interval, 2.4–5.1), and in cases where intrauterine death or maternal acute respiratory distress syndrome mortality were more likely.CONCLUSIONThe decision to pursue elective delivery vs expectant management in pregnant individuals with COVID-19–related acute respiratory distress syndrome should be guided by gestational age, risk of intrauterine death, and maternal acute respiratory distress syndrome severity. For the pregnant individual, elective delivery is comparable but not superior to expectant management for gestational ages from 28 to 34 weeks. For neonates, elective delivery was superior if gestational age was ≥30 weeks and if the rate of intrauterine death or maternal mortality risk were high. We recommend basing the decision for elective delivery vs expectant management in a pregnant individual with COVID-19–related acute respiratory distress syndrome on gestational age and likelihood of intrauterine or maternal death.

COVID-19-Associated Lung Fibrosis: Two Pathways and Two Phenotypes, Lung Transplantation, and Antifibrotics

COVID-19 can be associated with lung fibrosis. Although lung fibrosis after COVID-19 is a relatively rare finding, the mere fact that globally a very large number of patients have had COVID-19 leads to a significant burden of disease. However, patients with COVID-19-associated lung fibrosis have different clinical and radiological features. The aim of this review is to define the different phenotypes of COVID-19-associated lung fibrosis, based on the medical literature. We found that two phenotypes have emerged. One phenotype is COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS); the other phenotype is post-COVID-19 pulmonary fibrosis (PCPF). Both phenotypes have different risk factors, clinical, and radiological features, and differ in their pathophysiological mechanisms and prognoses. A long-term follow-up of patients with pulmonary complications after COVID-19 is warranted, even in patients with only discrete fibrosis. Further studies are needed to determine the optimal treatment because currently the literature is scarce, and evidence is only based on small case series or case reports.

Effect of body position on the redistribution of regional lung aeration during invasive and non-invasive ventilation of COVID-19 patients

Severe COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (C-ARDS) requires mechanical ventilation. While this intervention is often performed in the prone position to improve oxygenation, the underlying mechanisms responsible for the improvement in respiratory function during invasive ventilation and awake prone positioning in C-ARDS have not yet been elucidated. In this prospective observational trial, we evaluated the respiratory function of C-ARDS patients while in the supine and prone positions during invasive (n = 13) or non-invasive ventilation (n = 15). The primary endpoint was the positional change in lung regional aeration, assessed with electrical impedance tomography. Secondary endpoints included parameters of ventilation and oxygenation, volumetric capnography, respiratory system mechanics and intrapulmonary shunt fraction. In comparison to the supine position, the prone position significantly increased ventilation distribution in dorsal lung zones for patients under invasive ventilation (53.3 ± 18.3% vs. 43.8 ± 12.3%, percentage of dorsal lung aeration ± standard deviation in prone and supine positions, respectively; p = 0.014); whereas, regional aeration in both positions did not change during non-invasive ventilation (36.4 ± 11.4% vs. 33.7 ± 10.1%; p = 0.43). Prone positioning significantly improved the oxygenation both during invasive and non-invasive ventilation. For invasively ventilated patients reduced intrapulmonary shunt fraction, ventilation dead space and respiratory resistance were observed in the prone position. Oxygenation is improved during non-invasive and invasive ventilation with prone positioning in patients with C-ARDS. Different mechanisms may underly this benefit during these two ventilation modalities, driven by improved distribution of lung regional aeration, intrapulmonary shunt fraction and ventilation-perfusion matching. However, the differences in the severity of C-ARDS may have biased the sensitivity of electrical impedance tomography when comparing positional changes between the protocol groups.Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04359407) and Registered 24 April 2020, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04359407.

Thoracic surgery in patients on veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for COVID-19 associated acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Objectives:The COVID-19 pandemic has generated a new type of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) arising as a complication of COVID-19 pneumonia. Extreme cases require the support of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Here we present the outcomes of patients that underwent surgical tracheostomy or thoracic surgery at a single tertiary centre whilst on ECMO support for COVID-19 related ARDS.Methods:18 patients requiring thoracic input whilst on ECMO support during the first wave of COVID-19 (March–June 2020) were included. Thoracic surgery was required both for performing surgical tracheostomies in the operating theatre and for treating emergencies arising under the ECMO treatment such as bleeding complications.Results:Thirteen patients underwent a surgical tracheostomy, whilst five patients had an invasive thoracic procedure. Anticoagulation was withheld for at least 12 h in the perioperative setting regardless of the indication. One patient was re-operated for haemothorax immediately after the end of the primary operation. 94.5% of the patients were successfully decannulated from ECMO support. Overall 30-day mortality in the cohort was 5.5% (1/18).Conclusions:Thoracic surgeons can play a valuable role in supporting an ECMO unit during the COVID pandemic, by treating ECMO related complications and by safely performing surgical tracheostomies. Withholding anticoagulation in the perioperative window was not associated with increased thromboembolic events and is desirable when interventions or surgery is indicated in this patient cohort to avoid excessive bleeding.

Ambulation in Veno-Arterial-Venous (VAV) Cannulation for ECMO Support in COVID-19 Related ARDS with Right Ventricular Failure

PurposePhysical functioning in patients undergoing extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) related to strict bedrest requirements is debilitating. Physical therapy (PT) in these patients can be beneficial. However, the data in COVID-19 associated with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is not well characterized. We present our experience with ambulation in patients receiving veno-arterial-venous (VAV) ECMO support.MethodsClinical charts of COVID-19 associated ARDS patients with VAV-ECMO support who received PT sessions between January 2021 and October 2021 were retrospectively reviewed and analyzed. Mobility functions were assessed. Episodes of oxygen saturation and hypotension were noted as primary outcomes.ResultsEight patients were placed on VAV-ECMO for decompensated heart failure with right axillary artery cannulation via vascular graft and right internal jugular vein double lumen (Avalon) cannula. Mean age was 46.9 ± 10.3 years, and BMI was 30.6 ± 4.4 kg/m2 with five males. Mean duration of ECMO support was 53.6 ± 13.4 days. Average PT sessions per patient were 22.8 ± 12.2, with average days to PT initiation from ECMO insertion being 19.0 ± 8.1 days. The total average time per daily PT session was 27.2 ± 9.3 minutes. The ability to perform mobility functions with minimal, moderate, total, stand-by, contact-guard assistance for all patients is listed in the table. During PT sessions, a total of 14 episodes of oxygen desaturation and six episodes of hypotension in four patients were noted. There were no events of any cannula displacement. Of all, three are still in the hospital supported by ECMO, three transferred to the lung transplant center, one died in hospital, and one discharged home.ConclusionVAV ECMO support via right axillary and RIJ dual lumen cannulation provides a safe strategy for prolonging support and effective rehabilitation in severe COVID-19 related ARDS patients complicated with RV failure.

Bedside Selection of Positive End Expiratory Pressure by Electrical Impedance Tomography in Patients Undergoing Veno-Venous Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation Support: A Comparison between COVID-19 ARDS and ARDS from Other Etiologies.

Background: The interest in protective ventilation strategies and individualized approaches for patients with severe illness on veno venous extracorporeal support has increased in recent years. Wide heterogeneity exists among patients with COVID-19 related acute respiratory distress syndrome (C-ARDS) and ARDS from other etiologies (NC-ARDS). EIT is a useful tool for the accurate analysis of regional lung volume distribution and allows for a tailored ventilatory setting. The aim of this work is to retrospectively describe the results of EIT assessments performed in patients C-ARDS and NC-ARDS undergoing V-V ECMO support. Methods: A clinical EIT-guided decremental PEEP trail was conducted for all patients included in the study and mechanically ventilated. Results: 12 patients with C-ARDS and 12 patients with NC-ARDS were included in the study for a total of 13 and 18 EIT evaluations, respectively. No significant differences in arterial blood gas, respiratory parameters, and regional ventilation before and after the EIT exam were recorded. The subset of patients with NC-ARDS whose EIT exam led to PEEP modification was characterized by a lower baseline compliance compared with the C-ARDS group: 18 (16–28) vs. 27 (24–30) (p = 0.04). Overdistension significantly increased at higher steps only for the NC-ARDS group. A higher percentage of overdistension was described in patients with NC-ARDS when compared with patients with C-ARDS. Conclusions: EIT is feasible in patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS on veno-venous extracorporeal support and may help in tailoring the PEEP setting. Overall, severe COVID-19-related ARDS presents respiratory characteristics similar to severe “classical” NC-ARDS. However, C-ARDS is associated with a lower risk of overdistension at a higher PEEP level compared with NC-ARDS.

Association of COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome With Symptoms of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder in Family Members After ICU Discharge

Persistent physical and mental disorders are frequent in survivors of COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). However, data on these disorders among family members are scarce. To determine the association between patient hospitalization for COVID-19 ARDS vs ARDS from other causes and the risk of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)-related symptoms in family members. Prospective cohort study in 23 intensive care units (ICUs) in France (January 2020 to June 2020 with final follow-up ending in October 2020). ARDS survivors and family members (1 family member per patient) were enrolled. Family members of patients hospitalized for ARDS due to COVID-19 vs ARDS due to other causes. The primary outcome was family member symptoms of PTSD at 90 days after ICU discharge, measured by the Impact of Events Scale-Revised (score range, 0 [best] to 88 [worst]; presence of PTSD symptoms defined by score >22). Secondary outcomes were family member symptoms of anxiety and depression at 90 days assessed by the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (score range, 0 [best] to 42 [worst]; presence of anxiety or depression symptoms defined by subscale scores ≥7). Multivariable logistic regression models were used to determine the association between COVID-19 status and outcomes. Among 602 family members and 307 patients prospectively enrolled, 517 (86%) family members (median [IQR] age, 51 [40-63] years; 72% women; 48% spouses; 26% bereaved because of the study patient's death; 303 [50%] family members of COVID-19 patients) and 273 (89%) patients (median [IQR] age, 61 [50-69] years; 34% women; 181 [59%] with COVID-19) completed the day-90 assessment. Compared with non-COVID-19 ARDS, family members of patients with COVID-19 ARDS had a significantly higher prevalence of symptoms of PTSD (35% [103/293] vs 19% [40/211]; difference, 16% [95% CI, 8%-24%]; P < .001), symptoms of anxiety (41% [121/294] vs 34% [70/207]; difference, 8% [95% CI, 0%-16%]; P= .05), and symptoms of depression (31% [91/291] vs 18% [37/209]; difference, 13% [95% CI, 6%-21%]; P< .001). In multivariable models adjusting for age, sex, and level of social support, COVID-19 ARDS was significantly associated with increased risk of PTSD-related symptoms in family members (odds ratio, 2.05 [95% CI, 1.30 to 3.23]). Among family members of patients hospitalized in the ICU with ARDS, COVID-19 disease, as compared with other causes of ARDS, was significantly associated with increased risk of symptoms of PTSD at 90 days after ICU discharge. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04341519.

The Application of Awake-Prone Positioning Among Non-intubated Patients With COVID-19-Related ARDS: A Narrative Review.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has significantly increased the number of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), necessitating respiratory support. This strain on intensive care unit (ICU) resources forces clinicians to limit the use of mechanical ventilation by seeking novel therapeutic strategies. Awake-prone positioning appears to be a safe and tolerable intervention for non-intubated patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure. Meanwhile, several observational studies and meta-analyses have reported the early use of prone positioning in awake patients with COVID-19-related ARDS (C-ARDS) for improving oxygenation levels and preventing ICU transfers. Indeed, some international guidelines have recommended the early application of awake-prone positioning in patients with hypoxemic respiratory failure attributable to C-ARDS. However, its effectiveness in reducing intubation rate, mortality, applied timing, and optimal duration is unclear. High-quality evidence of awake-prone positioning for hypoxemic patients with COVID-19 is still lacking. Therefore, this article provides an update on the current state of published literature about the physiological rationale, effect, timing, duration, and populations that might benefit from awake proning. Moreover, the risks and adverse effects of awake-prone positioning were also investigated. This work will guide future studies and aid clinicians in deciding on better treatment plans.

Clinical implications of microvascular CT scan signs in COVID-19 patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation.

PurposeCOVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is characterized by the presence of signs of microvascular involvement at the CT scan, such as the vascular tree in bud (TIB) and the vascular enlargement pattern (VEP). Recent evidence suggests that TIB could be associated with an increased duration of invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) and intensive care unit (ICU) stay. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate whether microvascular involvement signs could have a prognostic significance concerning liberation from IMV.Material and methodsAll the COVID-19 patients requiring IMV admitted to 16 Italian ICUs and having a lung CT scan recorded within 3 days from intubation were enrolled in this secondary analysis. Radiologic, clinical and biochemical data were collected.ResultsA total of 139 patients affected by COVID-19 related ARDS were enrolled. After grouping based on TIB or VEP detection, we found no differences in terms of duration of IMV and mortality. Extension of VEP and TIB was significantly correlated with ground-glass opacities (GGOs) and crazy paving pattern extension. A parenchymal extent over 50% of GGO and crazy paving pattern was more frequently observed among non-survivors, while a VEP and TIB extent involving 3 or more lobes was significantly more frequent in non-responders to prone positioning.ConclusionsThe presence of early CT scan signs of microvascular involvement in COVID-19 patients does not appear to be associated with differences in duration of IMV and mortality. However, patients with a high extension of VEP and TIB may have a reduced oxygenation response to prone positioning.Trial Registration: NCT04411459 Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11547-021-01444-7.