Next Article in Journal
Effective Connectivity between Major Nodes of the Limbic System, Salience and Frontoparietal Networks Differentiates Schizophrenia and Mood Disorders from Healthy Controls
Next Article in Special Issue
Sleep Dysfunction in COVID-19 Patients: Prevalence, Risk Factors, Mechanisms, and Management
Previous Article in Journal
Hepatitis B Virus Infection in Patients Receiving Allogeneic Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Previous Article in Special Issue
COVID-19 Advanced Care
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JPM
Volume 11
Issue 11
10.3390/jpm11111109
jpm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

COVID-19 ARDS: Points to Be Considered in Mechanical Ventilation and Weaning

by
Eumorfia Kondili
1,*,†,
Demosthenes Makris
2,†,
Dimitrios Georgopoulos
1,
Nikoletta Rovina
3,
Anastasia Kotanidou
4 and
Antonia Koutsoukou
3
1
Department of Intensive Care Medicine, University Hospital of Heraklion and Medical School, University of Crete, 71110 Heraklion, Greece
2
Critical Care Department, University Hospital of Larissa, Faculty of Medicine, University of Thessaly, 41110 Larissa, Greece
3
1st Department of Respiratory Medicine, Medical School, “Sotiria” Chest Disease Hospital, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, 11527 Athens, Greece
4
1st Department of Critical Care Medicine & Pulmonary Services, School of Medicine, National & Kapodistrian “Evangelismos” Hospital, University of Athens, 10676 Athens, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors have equal contribution.
J. Pers. Med. 2021, 11(11), 1109; https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11111109
Submission received: 30 August 2021 / Revised: 26 October 2021 / Accepted: 27 October 2021 / Published: 28 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Personalized Medicine for Covid-19 Patients-Clinical Considerations)
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The COVID-19 disease can cause hypoxemic respiratory failure due to ARDS, requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. Although early studies reported that COVID-19-associated ARDS has distinctive features from ARDS of other causes, recent observational studies have demonstrated that ARDS related to COVID-19 shares common clinical characteristics and respiratory system mechanics with ARDS of other origins. Therefore, mechanical ventilation in these patients should be based on strategies aiming to mitigate ventilator-induced lung injury. Assisted mechanical ventilation should be applied early in the course of mechanical ventilation by considering evaluation and minimizing factors associated with patient-inflicted lung injury. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation should be considered in selected patients with refractory hypoxia not responding to conventional ventilation strategies. This review highlights the current and evolving practice in managing mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS related to COVID-19.

1. Introduction

COVID-19 may cause hypoxemic respiratory failure, meeting the criteria of acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS] [1,2,3,4,5,6]. The majority of patients admitted in ICU will ultimately need some form of ventilator assistance and invasive mechanical ventilation [1,4,5]. Patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation have significantly longer mechanical ventilation and ICU stays than those with ARDS of other causes, whereas mortality in those patients varies considerably in different reports [1,5,7]. Observational studies, including a significant number of patients with ARDS due to COVID-19, have reported similar pathophysiological and clinical characteristics and respiratory system mechanics with ARDS of other causes [1,2,3,4,5]. These findings contrast the early reports that supported the presence of distinctive phenotypes of ARDS in COVID-19 patients [8,9,10]. The management of COVID-19 patients with ARDS is challenging. Ιt has been shown that mechanical ventilation relies mainly on the strategies that have been proved protective for the lung with respect to avoiding the development of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) [1,2]. Furthermore, physicians may face challenges with the use of assisted mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 patients. While spontaneous efforts may help in preserving diaphragmatic strength and thereby reduce the risks associated with diaphragm atrophy and dysfunction, they may promote regional stress and strain heterogeneity, potentially having a role in the progression of lung injury [11,12].
These points have to be considered carefully in COVID-19 patients who present severe forms of ARDS and difficult weaning. This review highlights the current and evolving practice of managing mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS related to COVID-19.

2. Is the ARDS in COVID-19 Different from ARDS of Other Causes?

Soon after the first patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 were admitted in ICUs worldwide, the hypothesis of the existence of two distinct ARDS phenotypes was introduced: the “type L” phenotype characterized by relatively low lung elastance (high compliance), low lung weight as estimated by CT scan, and low response to PEEP, and the “type H” phenotype described by high elastance (low compliance) with extensive CT consolidations, high lung weight, and high PEEP response. Accordingly, different ventilator strategies for the patients assigned in the two different phenotypes were suggested [8,9,10].
An important issue arising from this hypothesis is whether ARDS in COVID-19 patients is a different entity from ARDS of other causes; therefore, there is a need to abandon current established ventilator strategies in favor of a new approach.
The notion that there is considerable heterogeneity in respiratory mechanics, gas exchange disarrangement, and clinical course among patients with ARDS is an essential and pervasive finding [13,14]. Variations in lung compliance are not a specific feature of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Evidence from large ARDS trials supports that lung compliance in ARDS patients varies across a broad spectrum. Interestingly, a quarter of patients randomized in the ARDS-NET study had plateaued pressures in the range of 10 to 20 cmH2O, which is consistent with high lung compliance [15].
Subsequent cohorts included a substantial number of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 and reported similar clinical characteristics and respiratory system mechanics with those reported in prior large cohorts of patients with classical ARDS [1,2,3,4,16]. Moreover, it has been shown that patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 highly respond to established ventilation strategies, corresponding to patients with ARDS of other causes [16,17,18,19]. With respect to lung recruitabilty in patient ARDS due to COVID-19, two small observational studies reported opposite results that are probably related to the timing of recruitability assessment in the course of the disease [16,18]. Plausibly in some patients, the reported high respiratory compliance may be related to the timing of the initiation of mechanical ventilation. Specifically, in COVID-19 patients, intubation time varies considerably depending on the criteria set institutionally and the available resources [20]. It follows that patients who are intubated prematurely in the early phase of COVID-19 disease may present higher respiratory system compliance than those who have delayed or deferred commencement of mechanical ventilation [20].
Therefore, although some patients may exhibit high compliance, at least early in the course of the disease, there are insufficient patient data and certainly no experimental evidence to support the proposed model of different phenotypes.

3. How to Ventilate a Patient with ARDS due to COVID-19

Since ARDSs due to COVID-19 have similar pathophysiological, clinical characteristics, and respiratory system mechanics with ARDS of other causes, mechanical ventilation in those patients should rely on established protective ventilator strategies that target at minimizing ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) [21,22,23,24].

3.1. Controlled Mechanical Ventilation

3.1.1. Ventilator Strategies

Conventionally, controlled mechanical ventilation is applied in the early stage of ARDS, and volume control remains the most common ventilation mode during the first days of mechanical ventilation [25]. Protective mechanical ventilation during controlled modes aims to minimize stress and strain, the main determinants of VILI [22,24]. Table 1 summarizes the main ventilator and non-ventilatory strategies.

3.1.2. Setting FiO2

The administration of supplementary O2 therapy in mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS aims to improve oxygenation, albeit the optimal oxygenation target remains controversial [26,27]. The strategy of permissive hypoxia defined as SaO2-82–88% had previously been proposed in patients with severe ARDS in order to minimize the potential of hyperoxia-induced effects [28].
However, a retrospective study reported that patients with low PO2 (<72 mmHg) have a significantly higher incidence of long-term cognitive dysfunction than those with higher PO2 [29]. Two recent randomized studies investigated the effect of conservative versus liberal oxygen therapy in mechanically ventilated ARDS patients, and the studies yielded controversial results [30,31]. In the absence of conclusive studies and based on the harmful effects of hypoxia (tissue hypoxia) and hyperoxia (increased formation of reactive oxygen species, ROS), exposure to both hypoxia and hyperoxia should be avoided [32]. Currently, the standard recommendations of care in patients with ARDS suggest a target for conservative arterial oxygenation (PaO2 = 65–75 mmHg; SaO2 = 90–95%) [33].

3.1.3. Setting Tidal Volume

Based on an evidence-based approach, setting tidal volume (Vt) in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 should rely on established protective ventilation strategies. Since the results of the ARDSnet study, setting low tidal volume <6 mL/Kg of predicted body weight (PBW) and maintaining end-inspiratory pressure (Pplat) <30 cmH2O represent the fundamentals principles of protective mechanical ventilation in patients with ARDS [15,34].
However, PBW is poorly related to resting lung volume, and a similar tidal volume may cause different strains and stresses (the main determinants of VILI) in patients with the same anthropometric characteristics [35].
The ratio of Vt to respiratory system compliance (Crs), termed driving pressure (ΔP, calculated as the difference between Pplat and PEEP), better reflects lung stress since respiratory system compliance is strongly related to functional lung size. Setting Vt to achieve a ΔP < 14 cmH2O has been independently associated with lower mortality in ARDS patients [36,37]. Similar results were reported recently in COVID-19 patients [20].
Another method for titration tidal volume and other ventilator settings to minimize VILI could be targeting a certain level of mechanical power (MP), which describes the total energy applied to the respiratory system in the unit of time. The concept of MP has been introduced by Gattinoni a few years ago for estimating the contribution of various ventilator settings on the development of VILI, e.g., VT, respiratory rate, flow, and airway pressures [38].
Experimental and clinical studies have shown that an increase in MP above a certain level is associated with pulmonary edema formation and is independently associated with mortality [39,40,41,42,43].
A recent study based on retrospective analysis of previous studies in patients with ARDS has shown that the combination of driving pressure and the respiratory rate (4*Dp*RR) is associated with increased mortality and may serve as a simplified surrogate of MP [44].
In patients with suspected high chest wall elastance, estimation of the end-inspiratory transpulmonary pressure (PL, the difference between Pplat and oesophageal pressure (Poes) at end-inspiration) may be required [45]. Although established targets for safe limits of end-inspiratory PL are lacking, keeping it below 18–20 cmH2O has been widely considered a safe range to prevent regional lung overdistension [46].
A research group has suggested a liberal Vt approach (8–9 mL/kgPBW) in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 who initially exhibit nearly normal respiratory system compliance for avoiding excessive hypercapnia attributed to abnormal vascular components of dead space [8,9,10]. However, patients with COVID-19 commonly present excessive inflammatory responses that may predispose them toward ventilatory-induced lung injury, resulting in rapid deterioration in respiratory system compliance. Hence, setting a Vt higher than that suggested by lung-protective ventilatory strategy could conceivably increase stress and strain and can induce adverse impacts on patients with initially normal respiratory system mechanics [22,24].
In clinical practice, as an initial approach, a tidal volume of ≤6 mL/kg PBW should be applied and subsequently adjusted, targeting Pplat, ΔP, and end-inspiratory PL values within the range described above. Low Vt may cause hypercapnia and concomitant respiratory acidosis. In order to limit hypercapnia, minute ventilation can be increased by setting the breathing frequency up to 30/min. Measures should be considered for decreasing instrumental dead space, such as replacing heat and moisture exchange filters with a heater humidifier [47]. Although a safe lower limit of pH is unknown, a pH up to 7.22 is considered to have minimal deleterious effects in all patients except those with elevated intracranial pressure or pulmonary hypertension.

3.1.4. Setting PEEP

Applying PEEP in patients with ARDS represents one of the fundamentals of protective mechanical ventilation. The application of PEEP mitigates the risk of atelectotrauma by preventing the cycling opening and closing of unstable alveoli and improving lung compliance and homogeneity by increasing the number of open alveoli [46].
Patients with ARDS respond varyingly to an increase in PEEP, presenting high or low lung recruitability [48]. Applying a high PEEP level in the first group will reduce mechanical strain and atelectotrauma and decrease dead space ventilation and shunt. However, in patients with low lung recruitability (i.e., those with primary focal lung injury), a high PEEP level will cause additional distension of already aerated alveoli and increase dead space ventilation. Therefore, before setting the adequate PEEP, lung recruitability should be assessed.
Different methods have been proposed for assessing lung recruitability in patients with ARDS. In clinical practice, the most common method for assessing lung recruitability and titrating PEEP is by applying different levels of PEEP and monitoring oxygenation, respiratory system compliance, the end-inspiratory pressure (Pplat), and the driving pressure (ΔP). In highly recruitable lungs, increasing PEEP is associated with improved oxygenation, respiratory system compliance, and decreased ΔP. CT scan remains the most accurate method of response to different levels of PEEP [49]. Nevertheless, the method is time-consuming and complicated as it requires patient transportation out of the ICU environment, and in patients with COVID-19, this carries an increased risk of contamination. An alternative method for assessing lung recruitability and titrating PEEP at the bedside is electrical impedance tomography (EIT), a non-invasive radiation-free imaging method; however, its availability is currently limited [50,51].
A simple bedside method for assessing lung recruitability has been recently proposed: the recruitment to inflation (R:I) ratio [18,52]. R:I is derived during a one-breath maneuver in which PEEP decreases by 10 cmH2O and can be easily calculated with an online application (rtmaven.comaccessed on 10/10 2021). Values > 0.5 indicate potential lung recruitability.
PEEP titration based on end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure (Plendexp) may be required in patients with severe ARDS and low chest wall compliance [45]. Due to reduced chest wall compliance, edema, or abdominal distension, oesophageal pressure (Poes) may be elevated, and the calculated transpulmonary pressure (the difference between Paw and Peos) can be negative at end-expiration. Negative PLendexp indicates closed or compressed airways or atelectatic lungs. Thus, PEEP could be increased until transpulmonary pressure becomes positive at end-expiration to keep the airways open. Increasing the PEEP aiming to Plend-exp ≥0 cmH2O has been shown to improve oxygenation compared to titration based on the table in the ARDSNetwork study [45].
Since ARDS in COVID-19 presents similar characteristics and respiratory mechanics with the ARDS of other causes, it is not unreasonable to rely on strategies already established in patients with ARDS of other causes when setting PEEP in those patients. Recent observational studies in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 report that the median PEEP level was ≥10 cmH2O, which is moderately higher than that reported in the LUNG SAFE study [2,7]. [8.4 cmH2O]. The higher level of PEEP in COVID-19 patients may be attributed to the higher incidence of severe hypoxemia; baseline PaO2/FiO2 is frequently <150 mmHg at the commencement of mechanical ventilation [20]. Conventionally, an initial PEEP > 8 cmH2O is selected in moderate to severe ARDS, and further titration is based on the indices described above byconsidering lung recruitability and the potential effects of PEEP on systemic and pulmonary circulation.

3.1.5. Recruitment Maneuvers

A recruitment maneuver (RM) is the intentional application of elevated transpulmonary pressure to reopen previously collapsed lung units, thus increasing the lung units available for gas exchange. RM should be considered before any change in the level of applied PEEP or in the case of intentional or accidental ventilator circuit discontinuation [53,54]. Different techniques of RM have been proposed [53]. As sufficient evidence for distinguishing which technique is superior is lacking, in everyday clinical practice, the choice of the technique for performing RM is determined by individual bias. Several studies have been shown the beneficial effects of RM on the improvement of oxygenation in patients with ARDS [55,56]. It should be observed that the applying RM may be associated with hemodynamical compromise, whereas other more serious adverse events, such as barotrauma, infrequently occur [55,56,57,58].

3.1.6. Adjuvant Non-Ventilatory Strategies

Prone Positioning

Prone positioning has been proven to be one of the most effective interventions in patients with moderate to severe ARDS and is associated with increased survival [59].
A multicentre randomized controlled trial found that placing patients with severe ARDS (PaO2/FiO2 < 150 mmHg) in the prone position for at least 16 h/day improved survival compared to the semi-recumbent supine position [59]. The beneficial effects of prone positioning in ARDS patients are attributed to lung ventilation and lung perfusion alterations. Normally, ventilation favors ventral lung regions, and pulmonary perfusion preferentially distributes to the dorsal lung regions [60]. In patients with ARDS, lung edema further diminishes dorsal regions aeration, resulting in shunt aggravation and increased low V’/Q’ in these regions. Prone position increases the aeration of dorsal lung units, and as pulmonary perfusion remains preferentially distributed to the dorsal lung regions, ventilation/perfusion matching improves and shunt fraction decreases, causing an increase in PaO2 and a decrease in PaCO2 in several patients [60,61]. Furthermore, recent data support that prone positions increase lung homogeneity, especially at high PEEP level [60,61].
Moreover, the more homogenous lung ventilation and increased size of the aerated lung may protect the lung from abnormal stress and strain and mitigate the risk of VILI [62,63]. Recent clinical trials suggest that prone positioning sessions should be initiated early (within two days on mechanical ventilation) in patients with moderate to severe ARDS (PaO2/FiO2 ratio <200 mmHg) [23,59].
Prone positioning has been widely used in mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 as part of ventilation management in patients with refractory hypoxia. A scoping review reports that the rate of prone positioning in patients with COVID-19 ranges from 17 to 81% [2], which is significantly higher than the rate of 7.9% reported in the LUNG SAFE study [7]. A bicentric observational retrospective study reported significant improvement of oxygenation on prone positioning in 77% of proning sessions, although 14% of the cases showed slow response in oxygenation improvement (after 9.5 h) [64].
A recent observational study reported that in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19, prone positioning for a prolonged period [36 h] was safe and associated with more pronounced impacts on oxygenation than 16 h of prone positioning [65]. Accordingly, prone positioning should be applied for extended periods in the absence of contraindications or significant side effects. In the condition of work overload for healthcare assistants, this strategy might reduce the number of pronation cycles required for a single patient.
Optimal timing and criteria for discontinuing prone ventilation are somewhat unclear and should be evaluated individually. It is not unreasonable to implement criteria similar to those in studies that have shown benefits in non-COVID-19 related ARDS: PaO2/FiO2 ≥ 150 mmHg, FiO2 ≤ 0.6, and PEEP ≤ 10 cmH2O maintained for at least four hours after the end of the last prone session [23].
Prone position in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients has been associated with a favorable outcome. A recent observational study reported lower in-hospital mortality in mechanically ventilated patients treated with early proning than compared to patients whose treatment did not include early proning [66].
It should be emphasized that prone positioning sessions should be combined with other lung-protective strategies (low VT, low Pplat and driving pressures, and individualized PEEP titration).

Neuromuscular Agents

The beneficial effect of neuromuscular blockers (NMBA) on the outcome of mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS remains controversial since two large randomized trials reported inconsistent results [67,68]. However, NMBA should be considered in specific groups of ARDS patients as it may be associated with a favorable outcome. The exact mechanism is unidentified, and it is hypothesized that lower transpulmonary pressure and improved patient–ventilator interaction facilitated lung-protective ventilation. Current guidelines suggest utilizing NMBA in patients with ARDS for no longer than 48 h and utilizing significant patient–ventilator interaction (i.e., reverse triggering) that restrains lung-protective ventilation in patients with severe hypoxemia and those with markedly high respiratory drive despite deep sedation [23,69].
NMBA has been used widely in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. Recent observational studies reported that the rate of NMBA use in those patients ranges from 22–88% [1,2,70], significantly higher than that reported in previous studies in patients with ARDS of other causes [7]. Furthermore, in about two-thirds of patients, the duration of NMBA is longer (median five days) than the recommended two days [2]. The frequent and prolonged prone positioning along with high respiratory drive that these patients frequently exhibit may explain both the high rate and the longer duration of use of NMBA in COVID-19 patients.
The judicious use of NMBA in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients is suggested in patients with remarkably high respiratory drive, even when on deep sedation. NMBA in those patients facilitates lung-protective ventilation and, by preventing the strong inspiratory efforts, may improve patient–ventilator synchrony and decrease the risk of self-inflicted lung injury.

3.2. Assisted Mechanical Ventilation

MV discontinuation requires reduction in mechanical ventilatory support and placement of work of breathing (WOB) on the respiratory muscles [71,72,73]. When respiratory failure due to COVID-19 ARDS recedes and the patient’s condition improves, the patient may be allowed to resume spontaneous breathing and assisted mechanical ventilation (AMV) should be considered [71,72,73]. The decision/criteria for switching to AMV are subjects of considerable discussion. Any strategy has to assess whether the patient is deemed ready for AMV. The current recommendations for non-COVID patients could also be applied in COVID-19 patients, emphasizing that a conservative strategy may be associated with improved outcomes [74,75,76,77]. Solid evidence-based recommendations for ventilation strategies during AMV in patients with COVID-19 ARDS are lacking [76,77]. It has been proposed that clinicians should follow the recommended principles for non-COVID ARDS (a protective strategy based on low Vt and airway pressures) [75,78]. Both conventional (pressure support, PS) and proportional modes (proportional assist ventilation with adjustable gain factors; PAV+, and neurally adjusted ventilatory assist; NAVA) can be used [25,79,80,81,82,83,84]. Although studies are lacking in COVID-19 patients, proportional modes over PS are preferable as these modes follow patients’ ventilation demands and are associated with better patient–ventilator synchrony [79,81,83,84]. In addition, PAV+ automatically calculates respiratory system mechanics (compliance and resistance) and drives pressure, a tool that may assist the decision-making process [81].

Specific Points to Be Considered in Assisted Mechanical Ventilation

The Role of Spontaneous Breathing

Assisted mechanical ventilation (AMV) should be considered as earlier as possible in the course of mechanical ventilation as spontaneous breathing may improve lung ventilation/perfusion matching and shunt by recruiting dorsal atelectatic regions, prevent ventilation-induced diaphragmatic dysfunction (VIDD), and reduce sedation requirements [72,85,86,87]. Nevertheless, spontaneous breathing may per se worsen lung injury resulting in so-called patient inflicted lung injury (P-SILI) [11,12,73,88,89,90].
Different mechanisms have been proposed for the pathogenesis of P-SILI. Vigorous spontaneous breathing decreases pleural pressure and increases transpulmonary pressures and tidal volumes, exacerbating lung stress and strain for the same lung mechanics. Moreover, inspiratory effort produces a more negative pleural pressure in the dependent lung regions than compared to non-dependent lung regions in the case of lung injury. As a result, air is moving from non-dependent to dependent areas early in inspiration, causing significant distention of the dependent areas and lung injury aggravation, a phenomenon described as pendelluft. In addition, patient–ventilator asynchrony mainly doubling triggering and breath stacking may further augment transpulmonary pressures and tidal volumes despite lung-protective strategies. Recent experimental findings suggested that effort-dependent lung injury was minimized by high PEEP in severe ARDS; however, more data, especially from clinical studies, are necessary to provide insight for the optimum ventilatory strategy in this setting [91,92].

Transpulmonary Pressures

Spontaneous breathing during MV in injured lungs needs careful attendance because spontaneous efforts may promote regional strain and strain heterogeneity and may have a role in the progression of lung injury [77,88,93]. The regional volumetric deformation of the lung during high strain-spontaneous breathing and the transduction of mechanical power delivered to the lung may result in a type of effort-induced lung injury [89,90,94]. Monitoring transpulmonary pressure may be required during assisted mechanical ventilation as it may serve as an indicator of the inspiratory efforts’ intensity [95,96,97,98]. Low swing pressures (both esophageal and transdiaphragmatic <7 cmH2O) were associated with low inspiratory efforts in terms of the pressure-time product (PTPPdi/min <50 cmH2O.s/min), whereas relatively high efforts (PTPPdi/min >150 cmH2O.s/min) were associated with increased swings (14–18 cmH2O) [98]. Therefore, clinicians should be vigilant if vigorous spontaneous efforts are present during weaning.

Inspiratory Respiratory Drive

Increased respiratory drive may be deleterious as it may promote dynamic hyperinflation and increased oxygen consumption [97,99]. High respiratory drive may be associated with patient self-inflicted lung injury [P-SILI], and this may be a pathophysiologic mechanism in COVID-19 ARDS for the progression of the syndrome (from type L to type H phenotype as previously suggested) [8,100]. In addition, increased WOB due to high ventilation demands (pneumonia, systemic inflammation, uncontrolled delirium, presence of superinfection, drug withdrawal reaction, and acidosis) is associated with weaning failure and prolonged MV duration [76,77,101,102]. Therefore, it is essential to prevent and control these conditions during weaning, and respiratory drive must be monitored and managed optimally [101,102]. Although specific indices for direct respiratory drive evaluation are lacking, monitoring variables deemed surrogates for the respiratory drive, such as the airway occlusion pressure (P0.1) or the swing in airway pressure generated by respiratory muscle effort when the airway is briefly occluded (ΔPocc), should be considered alternatively [103,104]. A recent study evaluated airway occlusion pressure [P0.1] in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients and showed that P0.1 above 4 cm H2O could predict the worsening of respiratory failure in the next 24 h [78,103]. On the other hand, a recent study showed that measuring ΔPocc may enable accurate non-invasive detection of elevated respiratory muscle pressure and transpulmonary driving pressure [104].

Patient–Ventilator Asynchrony

Patient–ventilator asynchrony is associated with adverse outcomes and has been identified as a risk factor for unsuccessful weaning [105,106]. Patient–ventilator asynchrony may occur during AMV due to uncoupling between the patient and the ventilator in terms of timing (matching between neural and mechanical time) and ventilatory assistance [107,108]. Ineffective efforts, autotriggering, and double triggering are the most common forms of asynchrony [82,109,110,111]. Ineffective efforts and breath stacking may be frequently encountered in COVID-19 patients due to myopathy and increased respiratory drive, respectively.
Ineffective efforts may occur during either the inspiratory or the expiratory ventilator phase. Their incidence depends on several factors related to the patient’s medical condition, ventilator settings, and sedation depth. It usually implies a decrease in inspiratory muscle pressure (i.e., sedation, sleep, respiratory or metabolic alkalosis, and polyneuromyopathy) or factors promoting dynamic hyperinflation (i.e., obstructive lung disease, tachypnea, high tidal volume due to high level of assist, and delayed cycling off). Double triggering (or breath stacking) may occur when the patient’s demand is high, and his inspiratory effort continues throughout the preset ventilator inspiratory time and remains present even after the end of ventilator inspiratory time [34]. This phenomenon may result in the delivery of two consecutive breaths for one patient’s effort. Short inspiratory times, usually accompanied by low tidal volume and high respiratory drive, are the cause for double triggering.

Airway Pressures

Plateau end-inspiratory airway pressure (Pplat) may help estimate respiratory system compliance and driving pressure—both are associated with major outcomes in ARDS [36,112,113]. Recent investigations showed that high driving pressures and low compliance during AMV are also associated with adverse outcomes [114]. Despite the great interest in implementing the measurement of Pplat during AMV, there are limitations in the accuracy of the measurement that are mainly due to mismatch between the end of neural inspiration and end of mechanical inflation 113. Undoubtedly, high driving pressures in AMV are a concern and require further investigation; it may result from expiratory impaired lung mechanics and/or decreased chest wall compliance [114,115]. Therefore, it seems prudent to implement further diagnostic workup (i.e., measurement of esophageal pressures). The most important points to consider during assisted mechanical ventilation are summarized in Table 2.

4. Weaning from Mechanical Ventilation

Weaning from MV covers the entire process of liberating the patient from mechanical support and the endotracheal tube. There are different stages in the weaning process, including the treatment of acute respiratory failure, assessment of readiness to wean, the performance of a spontaneous-breathing-trial (SBT), and finally extubation [116]. The time spent in the weaning process is estimated at 40–50% of the total duration of mechanical ventilation, and delayed or prolonged weaning may expose the patient to an increased risk of complications [74,117]. Patients with COVID-19 commonly exhibit difficult or prolonged weaning. Recent USA and European cohorts reported that about half of these patients remained intubated for almost 14 days [118,119]. Additionally, patients who were older (>65 years) and/or obese (BM1 > 30) were at higher risks for difficult weaning [118,119]. Pathophysiology of weaning failure is multifactorial; the pathophysiologic factors associated with weaning failure are summarized in Table 3. Respiratory pump insufficiency results from a decrease in respiratory neuromuscular capability and/or increased respiratory muscle workload; it is probably the most common cause of weaning failure in COVID-19. Inspiratory muscle dysfunction is frequently accounted for in COVID-19 patients, especially in those with prolonged mechanical ventilation and/or those treated with muscle relaxants for prolonged periods. Increased respiratory muscle load is mainly attributed to reduced respiratory system compliance due to either COVID-19 or pneumonia, pulmonary edema, fibrosis, and hemorrhage [120,121,122]. Several clinical, physiologic and non-invasive ultrasound indices are currently available for identifying patients who will have successful weaning [116,123].
Moreover, different tools have been addressed to prevent and treat post-extubation respiratory failure. The use of pre-emptive noninvasive ventilation (NIV) may be beneficial as a bridge to full spontaneous breathing in hypercapnic patients and in selected hypoxemic patients at high risks of weaning failure [124,125]. High flow nasal cannula (HFNC) oxygen therapy is an additional optimal tool for hypoxemic patients, and it is easily tolerated by the patients and may reduce the need for reintubation [126,127].

5. When Should We Consider Referring a Patient for Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation

The use of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) for ARDS has been previously reported during the 2009 influenza A (H1N1) pandemic, as well as the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) outbreak [128,129,130]. ECMO is used in patients with ARDS due to COVID-19 [129,131,132]. Although early reports on ECMO use for COVID-19-related ARDS were disappointing, raising concerns regarding ECMO use in this patient population [131,132,133,134,135,136], later data reported considerably better outcomes [131,132,135,136]. Differences in patients’ clinical characteristics and resource management, along with organizational factors, may be responsible for the variations reported in the outcomes of different studies. Several organizations (World Health Organization, WHO; Extracorporeal Life Support Organization, ELSO; the Surviving Sepsis Campaign, SSC) recommend the consideration of veno-venous ECMO (V-V ECMO) in selected patients with severe ARDS and refractory hypoxaemia for conventional care (appropriate PEEP, neuromuscular blockade, prone position, and optimal ventilation) and referral in specialized ECMO centers [78,137,138]. V-V ECMO alleviates the respiratory system by improving oxygenation and by providing the benefit of lung protective ventilation. Veno-arterial (V-A) ECMO is recommended for patients with circulatory disorders, specifically in those with evidence of refractory left ventricular dysfunction. Although ECMO in several cases provides good therapeutic effects in COVID-19 patients, it can also interfere with normal physiology and induce immune and coagulation abnormalities [138,139]. Several mechanical complications, such as oxygenator dysfunction, pump failure, circuit obstruction, and cannula dysfunction, are reported in 28% of patients on ECMO by the ELSO Registry of ECMO in COVID-19 [132].
It is acknowledged that ECMO induces a pro-coagulant effect. Coagulation factors, as time passes, are eliminated due to their binding to the ECMO surface coating material. Therefore, a high incidence of venous thrombosis [33%] and pulmonary embolism [29%] is reported in COVID-19 patients receiving ECMO, whereas severe cerebral bleeding or severe bleeding is relatively rarely reported [138,140]. ECMO may also modulate inflammatory activation by reducing systemic inflammatory mediators through protective ventilation and the establishment of normoxia. Therefore, the timely use of ECMO is crucial for reducing systemic inflammation induced by severe hypoxia [141].
Indications and contraindications for the use of ECMO are shown in Table 4. In general, previously healthy young patients with single organ failure should have a priority for ECMO since they are more likely to receive the maximum benefit [131,142]. In a recent study on patients with severe refractory hypoxemic respiratory failure, V-V ECMO reduced mortality from 65 to 45% compared to conventional ventilation in a selected subpopulation (ECMO within seven days after intubation; young patients with no severe comorbidities) [143].

6. Conclusions

COVID-19 may cause hypoxemic respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome [ARDS]. Recent data have shown that ARDS related to COVID-19 shares common pathophysiological and clinical features with ARDS of other causes. Therefore, the aim to mitigate ventilator-induced lung injury is mandatory, and protective mechanical ventilation should be pursued in COVID-19 patients with ARDS. Assisted mechanical ventilation should be considered as early as possible in the course of mechanical ventilation; however, increased respiratory drive, vigorous spontaneous breathing, and patient–ventilator asynchrony should be carefully evaluated since they may be associated with patient self-inflicted lung injury. ECMO should be a therapeutic intervention in selected patients with severe ARDS and refractory hypoxemia to optimal ventilation, and these patients should be referred to specialized centers.

Author Contributions

E.K. and D.M. conceived and designed text structure, contributed to the writing of the manuscript, and read and approved the final version; D.G. conceived, designed text structure, and read and approved the final version; N.R., A.K. (Antonia Koutsoukou) and A.K. (Anastasia Kotanidou) have read and approved the final version of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by aresearch award of the Hellenic Thoracic Society.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ferrando, C.; Suarez-Sipmann, F.; Mellado-Artigas, R.; Hernandez, M.; Gea, A.; Arruti, E.; Aldecoa, C.; Martinez-Palli, G.; Martinez-Gonzalez, M.A.; Slutsky, A.S.; et al. Clinical features, ventilatory management, and outcome of ards caused by covid-19 are similar to other causes of ards. Intensive Care Med. 2020, 46, 2200–2211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Grasselli, G.; Cattaneo, E.; Florio, G.; Ippolito, M.; Zanella, A.; Cortegiani, A.; Huang, J.; Pesenti, A.; Einav, S. Mechanical ventilation parameters in critically ill covid-19 patients: A scoping review. Crit. Care 2021, 25, 115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Grasselli, G.; Zangrillo, A.; Zanella, A.; Antonelli, M.; Cabrini, L.; Castelli, A.; Cereda, D.; Coluccello, A.; Foti, G.; Fumagalli, R.; et al. Baseline characteristics and outcomes of 1591 patients infected with sars-cov-2 admitted to icus of the lombardy region, italy. JAMA 2020, 323, 1574–1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Richards-Belle, A.; Orzechowska, I.; Gould, D.W.; Thomas, K.; Doidge, J.C.; Mouncey, P.R.; Christian, M.D.; Shankar-Hari, M.; Harrison, D.A.; Rowan, K.M.; et al. Covid-19 in critical care: Epidemiology of the first epidemic wave across england, wales and northern ireland. Intensive Care Med. 2020, 46, 2035–2047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. COVID-ICU Group on behalf of the REVA Network. The COVID-ICU Investigators Clinical characteristics and day-90 outcomes of 4244 critically ill adults with covid-19: A prospective cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2021, 47, 60–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Bhatraju, P.K.; Ghassemieh, B.J.; Nichols, M.; Kim, R.; Jerome, K.R.; Nalla, A.K.; Greninger, A.L.; Pipavath, S.; Wurfel, M.M.; Evans, L.; et al. Covid-19 in Critically Ill Patients in the Seattle Region—Case Series. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 2012–2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Bellani, G.; Laffey, J.G.; Pham, T.; Fan, E.; Brochard, L.; Esteban, A.; Gattinoni, L.; van Haren, F.; Larsson, A.; McAuley, D.F.; et al. Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries. JAMA 2016, 315, 788–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Gattinoni, L.; Chiumello, D.; Caironi, P.; Busana, M.; Romitti, F.; Brazzi, L.; Camporota, L. Covid-19 pneumonia: Different respiratory treatments for different phenotypes? Intensive Care Med. 2020, 46, 1099–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Gattinoni, L.; Coppola, S.; Cressoni, M.; Busana, M.; Rossi, S.; Chiumello, D. Covid-19 does not lead to a "typical" acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2020, 201, 1299–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  10. Marini, J.J.; Gattinoni, L. Management of covid-19 respiratory distress. JAMA 2020, 323, 2329–2330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Grieco, D.L.; Menga, L.S.; Eleuteri, D.; Antonelli, M. Patient self-inflicted lung injury: Implications for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and ards patients on non-invasive support. Minerva Anestesiol. 2019, 85, 1014–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Battaglini, D.; Robba, C.; Ball, L.; Silva, P.L.; Cruz, F.F.; Pelosi, P.; Rocco, P.R.M. Noninvasive respiratory support and patient self-inflicted lung injury in covid-19: A narrative review. Br. J. Anaesth. 2021, 127, 353–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Famous, K.R.; Delucchi, K.; Ware, L.B.; Kangelaris, K.N.; Liu, K.D.; Thompson, B.T.; Calfee, C.S.; Network, A. Acute respiratory distress syndrome subphenotypes respond differently to randomized fluid management strategy. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2017, 195, 331–338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Calfee, C.S.; Delucchi, K.; Parsons, P.E.; Thompson, B.T.; Ware, L.B.; Matthay, M.A.; Network, N.A. Subphenotypes in acute respiratory distress syndrome: Latent class analysis of data from two randomised controlled trials. Lancet Respir. Med. 2014, 2, 611–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome, N.; Brower, R.G.; Matthay, M.A.; Morris, A.; Schoenfeld, D.; Thompson, B.T.; Wheeler, A. Ventilation with lower tidal volumes as compared with traditional tidal volumes for acute lung injury and the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 2000, 342, 1301–1308. [Google Scholar]
  16. Grieco, D.L.; Bongiovanni, F.; Chen, L.; Menga, L.S.; Cutuli, S.L.; Pintaudi, G.; Carelli, S.; Michi, T.; Torrini, F.; Lombardi, G.; et al. Respiratory physiology of covid-19-induced respiratory failure compared to ards of other etiologies. Crit. Care 2020, 24, 529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Mittermaier, M.; Pickerodt, P.; Kurth, F.; de Jarcy, L.B.; Uhrig, A.; Garcia, C.; Machleidt, F.; Pergantis, P.; Weber, S.; Li, Y.; et al. Evaluation of peep and prone positioning in early covid-19 ards. EClinicalMedicine 2020, 28, 100579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Pan, C.; Chen, L.; Lu, C.; Zhang, W.; Xia, J.A.; Sklar, M.C.; Du, B.; Brochard, L.; Qiu, H. Lung recruitability in covid-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: A single-center observational study. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2020, 201, 1294–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Ziehr, D.R.; Alladina, J.; Petri, C.R.; Maley, J.H.; Moskowitz, A.; Medoff, B.D.; Hibbert, K.A.; Thompson, B.T.; Hardin, C.C. Respiratory pathophysiology of mechanically ventilated patients with covid-19: A cohort study. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2020, 201, 1560–1564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Tsolaki, V.S.; Zakynthinos, G.E.; Mantzarlis, K.D.; Deskata, K.V.; Papadonta, M.E.; Gerovasileiou, E.S.; Manoulakas, E.E.; Zakynthinos, E.; Pantazopoulos, I.N.; Makris, D.A. Driving pressure in covid-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome is associated with respiratory distress duration before intubation. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2021, 204, 478–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Menk, M.; Estenssoro, E.; Sahetya, S.K.; Neto, A.S.; Sinha, P.; Slutsky, A.S.; Summers, C.; Yoshida, T.; Bein, T.; Ferguson, N.D. Current and evolving standards of care for patients with ards. Intensive Care Med. 2020, 46, 2157–2167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Brochard, L.; Slutsky, A.; Pesenti, A. Mechanical ventilation to minimize progression of lung injury in acute respiratory failure. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2017, 195, 438–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Fan, E.; Del Sorbo, L.; Goligher, E.C.; Hodgson, C.L.; Munshi, L.; Walkey, A.J.; Adhikari, N.K.J.; Amato, M.B.P.; Branson, R.; Brower, R.G.; et al. An official american thoracic society/european society of intensive care medicine/society of critical care medicine clinical practice guideline: Mechanical ventilation in adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2017, 195, 1253–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Slutsky, A.S.; Ranieri, V.M. Ventilator-induced lung injury. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013, 369, 2126–2136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Esteban, A.; Ferguson, N.D.; Meade, M.O.; Frutos-Vivar, F.; Apezteguia, C.; Brochard, L.; Raymondos, K.; Nin, N.; Hurtado, J.; Tomicic, V.; et al. Evolution of mechanical ventilation in response to clinical research. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2008, 177, 170–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Barbateskovic, M.; Schjorring, O.L.; Russo Krauss, S.; Jakobsen, J.C.; Meyhoff, C.S.; Dahl, R.M.; Rasmussen, B.S.; Perner, A.; Wetterslev, J. Higher versus lower fraction of inspired oxygen or targets of arterial oxygenation for adults admitted to the intensive care unit. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2019, 2019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Kallet, R.H.; Branson, R.D. Should oxygen therapy be tightly regulated to minimize hyperoxia in critically ill patients? Respir. Care 2016, 61, 801–817. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Abdelsalam, M.; Cheifetz, I.M. Goal-directed therapy for severely hypoxic patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: Permissive hypoxemia. Respir. Care 2010, 55, 1483–1490. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  29. Mikkelsen, M.E.; Christie, J.D.; Lanken, P.N.; Biester, R.C.; Thompson, B.T.; Bellamy, S.L.; Localio, A.R.; Demissie, E.; Hopkins, R.O.; Angus, D.C. The adult respiratory distress syndrome cognitive outcomes study: Long-term neuropsychological function in survivors of acute lung injury. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2012, 185, 1307–1315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Barrot, L.; Asfar, P.; Mauny, F.; Winiszewski, H.; Montini, F.; Badie, J.; Quenot, J.P.; Pili-Floury, S.; Bouhemad, B.; Louis, G.; et al. Liberal or conservative oxygen therapy for acute respiratory distress syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 2020, 382, 999–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Schjorring, O.L.; Klitgaard, T.L.; Perner, A.; Wetterslev, J.; Lange, T.; Siegemund, M.; Backlund, M.; Keus, F.; Laake, J.H.; Morgan, M.; et al. Lower or higher oxygenation targets for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. N. Engl. J. Med. 2021, 384, 1301–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Demiselle, J.; Calzia, E.; Hartmann, C.; Messerer, D.A.C.; Asfar, P.; Radermacher, P.; Datzmann, T. Target arterial po2 according to the underlying pathology: A mini-review of the available data in mechanically ventilated patients. Ann. Intensive Care 2021, 11, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Bein, T.; Grasso, S.; Moerer, O.; Quintel, M.; Guerin, C.; Deja, M.; Brondani, A.; Mehta, S. The standard of care of patients with ards: Ventilatory settings and rescue therapies for refractory hypoxemia. Intensive Care Med. 2016, 42, 699–711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  34. Kallet, R.H.; Campbell, A.R.; Dicker, R.A.; Katz, J.A.; Mackersie, R.C. Effects of tidal volume on work of breathing during lung-protective ventilation in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit. Care Med. 2006, 34, 8–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Chiumello, D.; Carlesso, E.; Cadringher, P.; Caironi, P.; Valenza, F.; Polli, F.; Tallarini, F.; Cozzi, P.; Cressoni, M.; Colombo, A.; et al. Lung stress and strain during mechanical ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2008, 178, 346–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  36. Amato, M.B.; Meade, M.O.; Slutsky, A.S.; Brochard, L.; Costa, E.L.; Schoenfeld, D.A.; Stewart, T.E.; Briel, M.; Talmor, D.; Mercat, A.; et al. Driving pressure and survival in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 2015, 372, 747–755. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  37. Pereira Romano, M.L.; Maia, I.S.; Laranjeira, L.N.; Damiani, L.P.; Paisani, D.M.; Borges, M.C.; Dantas, B.G.; Caser, E.B.; Victorino, J.A.; Filho, W.O.; et al. Driving pressure-limited strategy for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. A pilot randomized clinical trial. Ann. Am. Thorac. Soc. 2020, 17, 596–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Gattinoni, L.; Tonetti, T.; Cressoni, M.; Cadringher, P.; Herrmann, P.; Moerer, O.; Protti, A.; Gotti, M.; Chiurazzi, C.; Carlesso, E.; et al. Ventilator-related causes of lung injury: The mechanical power. Intensive Care Med. 2016, 42, 1567–1575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cressoni, M.; Gotti, M.; Chiurazzi, C.; Massari, D.; Algieri, I.; Amini, M.; Cammaroto, A.; Brioni, M.; Montaruli, C.; Nikolla, K.; et al. Mechanical power and development of ventilator-induced lung injury. Anesthesiology 2016, 124, 1100–1108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Collino, F.; Rapetti, F.; Vasques, F.; Maiolo, G.; Tonetti, T.; Romitti, F.; Niewenhuys, J.; Behnemann, T.; Camporota, L.; Hahn, G.; et al. Positive end-expiratory pressure and mechanical power. Anesthesiology 2019, 130, 119–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Santos, R.S.; Maia, L.A.; Oliveira, M.V.; Santos, C.L.; Moraes, L.; Pinto, E.F.; Samary, C.D.S.; Machado, J.A.; Carvalho, A.C.; Fernandes, M.V.S.; et al. Biologic impact of mechanical power at high and low tidal volumes in experimental mild acute respiratory distress syndrome. Anesthesiology 2018, 128, 1193–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Zhang, Z.; Zheng, B.; Liu, N.; Ge, H.; Hong, Y. Mechanical power normalized to predicted body weight as a predictor of mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Intensive Care Med. 2019, 45, 856–864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Serpa Neto, A.; Deliberato, R.O.; Johnson, A.E.W.; Bos, L.D.; Amorim, P.; Pereira, S.M.; Cazati, D.C.; Cordioli, R.L.; Correa, T.D.; Pollard, T.J.; et al. Mechanical power of ventilation is associated with mortality in critically ill patients: An analysis of patients in two observational cohorts. Intensive Care Med. 2018, 44, 1914–1922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Costa, E.L.V.; Slutsky, A.S.; Brochard, L.J.; Brower, R.; Serpa-Neto, A.; Cavalcanti, A.B.; Mercat, A.; Meade, M.; Morais, C.C.A.; Goligher, E.; et al. Ventilatory variables and mechanical power in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2021, 204, 303–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Talmor, D.; Sarge, T.; Malhotra, A.; O’Donnell, C.R.; Ritz, R.; Lisbon, A.; Novack, V.; Loring, S.H. Mechanical ventilation guided by esophageal pressure in acute lung injury. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 359, 2095–2104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Sahetya, S.K.; Goligher, E.C.; Brower, R.G. Fifty years of research in ards. Setting positive end-expiratory pressure in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2017, 195, 1429–1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Lyazidi, A.; Thille, A.W.; Carteaux, G.; Galia, F.; Brochard, L.; Richard, J.C. Bench test evaluation of volume delivered by modern icu ventilators during volume-controlled ventilation. Intensive Care Med. 2010, 36, 2074–2080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Briel, M.; Meade, M.; Mercat, A.; Brower, R.G.; Talmor, D.; Walter, S.D.; Slutsky, A.S.; Pullenayegum, E.; Zhou, Q.; Cook, D.; et al. Higher vs lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients with acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome: Systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2010, 303, 865–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Gattinoni, L.; Caironi, P.; Cressoni, M.; Chiumello, D.; Ranieri, V.M.; Quintel, M.; Russo, S.; Patroniti, N.; Cornejo, R.; Bugedo, G. Lung recruitment in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 2006, 354, 1775–1786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Bachmann, M.C.; Morais, C.; Bugedo, G.; Bruhn, A.; Morales, A.; Borges, J.B.; Costa, E.; Retamal, J. Electrical impedance tomography in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit. Care 2018, 22, 263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Kotani, T.; Shono, A. Roles of electrical impedance tomography in determining a lung protective strategy for acute respiratory distress syndrome in the era of coronavirus disease 2019. JMA J. 2021, 4, 81–85. [Google Scholar]
  52. Chen, L.; Del Sorbo, L.; Grieco, D.L.; Junhasavasdikul, D.; Rittayamai, N.; Soliman, I.; Sklar, M.C.; Rauseo, M.; Ferguson, N.D.; Fan, E.; et al. Potential for lung recruitment estimated by the recruitment-to-inflation ratio in acute respiratory distress syndrome. A clinical trial. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2020, 201, 178–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Hess, D.R. Recruitment maneuvers and peep titration. Respir. Care 2015, 60, 1688–1704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  54. Hess, D.R.; Bigatello, L.M. Lung recruitment: The role of recruitment maneuvers. Respir. Care 2002, 47, 308–317; discussion 317-308. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  55. Pensier, J.; de Jong, A.; Hajjej, Z.; Molinari, N.; Carr, J.; Belafia, F.; Chanques, G.; Futier, E.; Azoulay, E.; Jaber, S. Effect of lung recruitment maneuver on oxygenation, physiological parameters and mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2019, 45, 1691–1702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Kacmarek, R.M.; Villar, J.; Sulemanji, D.; Montiel, R.; Ferrando, C.; Blanco, J.; Koh, Y.; Soler, J.A.; Martinez, D.; Hernandez, M.; et al. Open lung approach for the acute respiratory distress syndrome: A pilot, randomized controlled trial. Crit. Care Med. 2016, 44, 32–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Fan, E.; Checkley, W.; Stewart, T.E.; Muscedere, J.; Lesur, O.; Granton, J.T.; Freitag, A.P.; Jacka, M.; Ferguson, N.D.; Meade, M.O. Complications from recruitment maneuvers in patients with acute lung injury: Secondary analysis from the lung open ventilation study. Respir. Care 2012, 57, 1842–1849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Hodgson, C.; Goligher, E.C.; Young, M.E.; Keating, J.L.; Holland, A.E.; Romero, L.; Bradley, S.J.; Tuxen, D. Recruitment manoeuvres for adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome receiving mechanical ventilation. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2016, 11, CD006667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Guerin, C.; Reignier, J.; Richard, J.C.; Beuret, P.; Gacouin, A.; Boulain, T.; Mercier, E.; Badet, M.; Mercat, A.; Baudin, O.; et al. Prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013, 368, 2159–2168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Guerin, C.; Albert, R.K.; Beitler, J.; Gattinoni, L.; Jaber, S.; Marini, J.J.; Munshi, L.; Papazian, L.; Pesenti, A.; Vieillard-Baron, A.; et al. Prone position in ards patients: Why, when, how and for whom. Intensive Care Med. 2020, 46, 2385–2396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Katira, B.H.; Osada, K.; Engelberts, D.; Bastia, L.; Damiani, L.F.; Li, X.; Chan, H.; Yoshida, T.; Amato, M.B.P.; Ferguson, N.D.; et al. Positive end-expiratory pressure, pleural pressure, and regional compliance during pronation: An experimental study. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2021, 203, 1266–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Gattinoni, L.; Pelosi, P.; Vitale, G.; Pesenti, A.; D’Andrea, L.; Mascheroni, D. Body position changes redistribute lung computed-tomographic density in patients with acute respiratory failure. Anesthesiology 1991, 74, 15–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Pelosi, P.; D’Andrea, L.; Vitale, G.; Pesenti, A.; Gattinoni, L. Vertical gradient of regional lung inflation in adult respiratory distress syndrome. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 1994, 149, 8–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Vollenberg, R.; Matern, P.; Nowacki, T.; Fuhrmann, V.; Padberg, J.S.; Ochs, K.; Schutte-Nutgen, K.; Strauss, M.; Schmidt, H.; Tepasse, P.R. Prone position in mechanically ventilated covid-19 patients: A multicenter study. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Carsetti, A.; Damia Paciarini, A.; Marini, B.; Pantanetti, S.; Adrario, E.; Donati, A. Prolonged prone position ventilation for sars-cov-2 patients is feasible and effective. Crit. Care 2020, 24, 225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Mathews, K.S.; Soh, H.; Shaefi, S.; Wang, W.; Bose, S.; Coca, S.; Gupta, S.; Hayek, S.S.; Srivastava, A.; Brenner, S.K.; et al. Prone positioning and survival in mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus disease 2019-related respiratory failure. Crit. Care Med. 2021, 49, 1026–1037. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  67. Papazian, L.; Forel, J.M.; Gacouin, A.; Penot-Ragon, C.; Perrin, G.; Loundou, A.; Jaber, S.; Arnal, J.M.; Perez, D.; Seghboyan, J.M.; et al. Neuromuscular blockers in early acute respiratory distress syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 2010, 363, 1107–1116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. National Heart, L.; Blood Institute, P.C.T.N.; Moss, M.; Huang, D.T.; Brower, R.G.; Ferguson, N.D.; Ginde, A.A.; Gong, M.N.; Grissom, C.K.; Gundel, S.; et al. Early neuromuscular blockade in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 2019, 380, 1997–2008. [Google Scholar]
  69. Alhazzani, W.; Belley-Cote, E.; Moller, M.H.; Angus, D.C.; Papazian, L.; Arabi, Y.M.; Citerio, G.; Connolly, B.; Denehy, L.; Fox-Robichaud, A.; et al. Neuromuscular blockade in patients with ards: A rapid practice guideline. Intensive Care Med. 2020, 46, 1977–1986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Courcelle, R.; Gaudry, S.; Serck, N.; Blonz, G.; Lascarrou, J.B.; Grimaldi, D.; on behalf of the COVADIS Study Group. Neuromuscular blocking agents (nmba) for covid-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: A multicenter observational study. Crit. Care 2020, 24, 446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Grassi, A.; Ferlicca, D.; Lupieri, E.; Calcinati, S.; Francesconi, S.; Sala, V.; Ormas, V.; Chiodaroli, E.; Abbruzzese, C.; Curto, F.; et al. Assisted mechanical ventilation promotes recovery of diaphragmatic thickness in critically ill patients: A prospective observational study. Crit. Care 2020, 24, 85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Goligher, E.C.; Brochard, L.J.; Reid, W.D.; Fan, E.; Saarela, O.; Slutsky, A.S.; Kavanagh, B.P.; Rubenfeld, G.D.; Ferguson, N.D. Diaphragmatic myotrauma: A mediator of prolonged ventilation and poor patient outcomes in acute respiratory failure. Lancet Respir. Med. 2019, 7, 90–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Hurtado, D.E.; Erranz, B.; Lillo, F.; Sarabia-Vallejos, M.; Iturrieta, P.; Morales, F.; Blaha, K.; Medina, T.; Diaz, F.; Cruces, P. Progression of regional lung strain and heterogeneity in lung injury: Assessing the evolution under spontaneous breathing and mechanical ventilation. Ann. Intensive Care 2020, 10, 107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Esteban, A.; Alia, I.; Ibanez, J.; Benito, S.; Tobin, M.J. Modes of mechanical ventilation and weaning. A national survey of spanish hospitals. The spanish lung failure collaborative group. Chest 1994, 106, 1188–1193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Hajjar, L.A.; Costa, I.; Rizk, S.I.; Biselli, B.; Gomes, B.R.; Bittar, C.S.; de Oliveira, G.Q.; de Almeida, J.P.; de Oliveira Bello, M.V.; Garzillo, C.; et al. Intensive care management of patients with covid-19: A practical approach. Ann. Intensive Care 2021, 11, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Poston, J.T.; Patel, B.K.; Davis, A.M. Management of critically ill adults with covid-19. JAMA 2020, 323, 1839–1841. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Cruces, P.; Retamal, J.; Hurtado, D.E.; Erranz, B.; Iturrieta, P.; Gonzalez, C.; Diaz, F. A physiological approach to understand the role of respiratory effort in the progression of lung injury in sars-cov-2 infection. Crit. Care 2020, 24, 494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Alhazzani, W.; Moller, M.H.; Arabi, Y.M.; Loeb, M.; Gong, M.N.; Fan, E.; Oczkowski, S.; Levy, M.M.; Derde, L.; Dzierba, A.; et al. Surviving sepsis campaign: Guidelines on the management of critically ill adults with coronavirus disease 2019 (covid-19). Intensive Care Med. 2020, 46, 854–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  79. Chiumello, D.; Pelosi, P.; Calvi, E.; Bigatello, L.M.; Gattinoni, L. Different modes of assisted ventilation in patients with acute respiratory failure. Eur Respir. J. 2002, 20, 925–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Georgopoulos, D.; Prinianakis, G.; Kondili, E. Bedside waveforms interpretation as a tool to identify patient-ventilator asynchronies. Intensive Care Med. 2006, 32, 34–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Kondili, E.; Prinianakis, G.; Alexopoulou, C.; Vakouti, E.; Klimathianaki, M.; Georgopoulos, D. Respiratory load compensation during mechanical ventilation--proportional assist ventilation with load-adjustable gain factors versus pressure support. Intensive Care Med. 2006, 32, 692–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Meza, S.; Mendez, M.; Ostrowski, M.; Younes, M. Susceptibility to periodic breathing with assisted ventilation during sleep in normal subjects. J. Appl. Physiol. 1998, 85, 1929–1940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  83. Terzi, N.; Pelieu, I.; Guittet, L.; Ramakers, M.; Seguin, A.; Daubin, C.; Charbonneau, P.; du Cheyron, D.; Lofaso, F. Neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in patients recovering spontaneous breathing after acute respiratory distress syndrome: Physiological evaluation. Crit. Care Med. 2010, 38, 1830–1837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Carteaux, G.; Cordoba-Izquierdo, A.; Lyazidi, A.; Heunks, L.; Thille, A.W.; Brochard, L. Comparison between neurally adjusted ventilatory assist and pressure support ventilation levels in terms of respiratory effort. Crit. Care Med. 2016, 44, 503–511. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Froese, A.B.; Bryan, A.C. Effects of anesthesia and paralysis on diaphragmatic mechanics in man. Anesthesiology 1974, 41, 242–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Zambon, M.; Beccaria, P.; Matsuno, J.; Gemma, M.; Frati, E.; Colombo, S.; Cabrini, L.; Landoni, G.; Zangrillo, A. Mechanical ventilation and diaphragmatic atrophy in critically ill patients: An ultrasound study. Crit. Care Med. 2016, 44, 1347–1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Levine, S.; Nguyen, T.; Taylor, N.; Friscia, M.E.; Budak, M.T.; Rothenberg, P.; Zhu, J.; Sachdeva, R.; Sonnad, S.; Kaiser, L.R.; et al. Rapid disuse atrophy of diaphragm fibers in mechanically ventilated humans. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 358, 1327–1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Yoshida, T.; Fujino, Y.; Amato, M.B.; Kavanagh, B.P. Fifty years of research in ards. Spontaneous breathing during mechanical ventilation. Risks, mechanisms, and management. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2017, 195, 985–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Motta-Ribeiro, G.C.; Hashimoto, S.; Winkler, T.; Baron, R.M.; Grogg, K.; Paula, L.; Santos, A.; Zeng, C.; Hibbert, K.; Harris, R.S.; et al. Deterioration of regional lung strain and inflammation during early lung injury. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2018, 198, 891–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  90. Yen, S.; Preissner, M.; Bennett, E.; Dubsky, S.; Carnibella, R.; O’Toole, R.; Roddam, L.; Jones, H.; Dargaville, P.A.; Fouras, A.; et al. The link between regional tidal stretch and lung injury during mechanical ventilation. Am. J. Respir. Cell Mol. Biol. 2019, 60, 569–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Morais, C.C.A.; Koyama, Y.; Yoshida, T.; Plens, G.M.; Gomes, S.; Lima, C.A.S.; Ramos, O.P.S.; Pereira, S.M.; Kawaguchi, N.; Yamamoto, H.; et al. High positive end-expiratory pressure renders spontaneous effort noninjurious. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2018, 197, 1285–1296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Yoshida, T.; Roldan, R.; Beraldo, M.A.; Torsani, V.; Gomes, S.; De Santis, R.R.; Costa, E.L.; Tucci, M.R.; Lima, R.G.; Kavanagh, B.P.; et al. Spontaneous effort during mechanical ventilation: Maximal injury with less positive end-expiratory pressure. Crit. Care Med. 2016, 44, e678–e688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  93. Hurtado, D.E.; Villarroel, N.; Andrade, C.; Retamal, J.; Bugedo, G.; Bruhn, A. Spatial patterns and frequency distributions of regional deformation in the healthy human lung. Biomech. Model. Mechanobiol. 2017, 16, 1413–1423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  94. Gattinoni, L.; Marini, J.J.; Busana, M.; Chiumello, D.; Camporota, L. Spontaneous breathing, transpulmonary pressure and mathematical trickery. Ann. Intensive Care 2020, 10, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Tobin, M.J.; Laghi, F.; Jubran, A. Caution about early intubation and mechanical ventilation in covid-19. Ann. Intensive Care 2020, 10, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Umbrello, M.; Formenti, P.; Lusardi, A.C.; Guanziroli, M.; Caccioppola, A.; Coppola, S.; Chiumello, D. Oesophageal pressure and respiratory muscle ultrasonographic measurements indicate inspiratory effort during pressure support ventilation. Br. J. Anaesth. 2020, 125, e148–e157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Vaporidi, K.; Akoumianaki, E.; Telias, I.; Goligher, E.C.; Brochard, L.; Georgopoulos, D. Respiratory drive in critically ill patients. Pathophysiology and clinical implications. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2020, 201, 20–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Vaporidi, K.; Soundoulounaki, S.; Papadakis, E.; Akoumianaki, E.; Kondili, E.; Georgopoulos, D. Esophageal and transdiaphragmatic pressure swings as indices of inspiratory effort. Respir. Physiol. Neurobiol. 2021, 284, 103561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Spinelli, E.; Mauri, T.; Beitler, J.R.; Pesenti, A.; Brodie, D. Respiratory drive in the acute respiratory distress syndrome: Pathophysiology, monitoring, and therapeutic interventions. Intensive Care Med. 2020, 46, 606–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Gattinoni, L.; Chiumello, D.; Rossi, S. Covid-19 pneumonia: Ards or not? Crit. Care 2020, 24, 154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Kirton, O.C.; DeHaven, C.B.; Morgan, J.P.; Windsor, J.; Civetta, J.M. Elevated imposed work of breathing masquerading as ventilator weaning intolerance. Chest 1995, 108, 1021–1025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Seymour, C.W.; Halpern, S.; Christie, J.D.; Gallop, R.; Fuchs, B.D. Minute ventilation recovery time measured using a new, simplified methodology predicts extubation outcome. J. Intensive Care Med. 2008, 23, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Esnault, P.; Cardinale, M.; Hraiech, S.; Goutorbe, P.; Baumstrack, K.; Prud’homme, E.; Bordes, J.; Forel, J.M.; Meaudre, E.; Papazian, L.; et al. High respiratory drive and excessive respiratory efforts predict relapse of respiratory failure in critically ill patients with covid-19. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2020, 202, 1173–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Bertoni, M.; Telias, I.; Urner, M.; Long, M.; Del Sorbo, L.; Fan, E.; Sinderby, C.; Beck, J.; Liu, L.; Qiu, H.; et al. A novel non-invasive method to detect excessively high respiratory effort and dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure during mechanical ventilation. Crit. Care 2019, 23, 346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Kondili, E.; Akoumianaki, E.; Alexopoulou, C.; Georgopoulos, D. Identifying and relieving asynchrony during mechanical ventilation. Expert Rev. Respir. Med. 2009, 3, 231–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Bellani, G.; Grasselli, G.; Teggia-Droghi, M.; Mauri, T.; Coppadoro, A.; Brochard, L.; Pesenti, A. Do spontaneous and mechanical breathing have similar effects on average transpulmonary and alveolar pressure? A clinical crossover study. Crit. Care 2016, 20, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Parthasarathy, S.; Tobin, M.J. Effect of ventilator mode on sleep quality in critically ill patients. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2002, 166, 1423–1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Dres, M.; Rittayamai, N.; Brochard, L. Monitoring patient-ventilator asynchrony. Curr. Opin. Crit. Care 2016, 22, 246–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. De Haro, C.; Ochagavia, A.; Lopez-Aguilar, J.; Fernandez-Gonzalo, S.; Navarra-Ventura, G.; Magrans, R.; Montanya, J.; Blanch, L.; Asynchronies in the Intensive Care Unit, G. Patient-ventilator asynchronies during mechanical ventilation: Current knowledge and research priorities. Intensive Care Med. Exp. 2019, 7, 43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Leung, R.S.; Bradley, T.D. Sleep apnea and cardiovascular disease. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2001, 164, 2147–2165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  111. Vaschetto, R.; Cammarota, G.; Colombo, D.; Longhini, F.; Grossi, F.; Giovanniello, A.; Della Corte, F.; Navalesi, P. Effects of propofol on patient-ventilator synchrony and interaction during pressure support ventilation and neurally adjusted ventilatory assist. Crit. Care Med. 2014, 42, 74–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Becher, T.H.; Bui, S.; Zick, G.; Blaser, D.; Schadler, D.; Weiler, N.; Frerichs, I. Assessment of respiratory system compliance with electrical impedance tomography using a positive end-expiratory pressure wave maneuver during pressure support ventilation: A pilot clinical study. Crit. Care 2014, 18, 679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  113. Al-Rawas, N.; Banner, M.J.; Euliano, N.R.; Tams, C.G.; Brown, J.; Martin, A.D.; Gabrielli, A. Expiratory time constant for determinations of plateau pressure, respiratory system compliance, and total resistance. Crit. Care 2013, 17, R23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  114. Bellani, G.; Grassi, A.; Sosio, S.; Gatti, S.; Kavanagh, B.P.; Pesenti, A.; Foti, G. Driving pressure is associated with outcome during assisted ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Anesthesiology 2019, 131, 594–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  115. Soundoulounaki, S.; Akoumianaki, E.; Kondili, E.; Pediaditis, E.; Prinianakis, G.; Vaporidi, K.; Georgopoulos, D. Airway pressure morphology and respiratory muscle activity during end-inspiratory occlusions in pressure support ventilation. Crit. Care 2020, 24, 467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Tobin, M.J. Remembrance of weaning past: The seminal papers. Intensive Care Med. 2006, 32, 1485–1493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Ely, E.W.; Baker, A.M.; Dunagan, D.P.; Burke, H.L.; Smith, A.C.; Kelly, P.T.; Johnson, M.M.; Browder, R.W.; Bowton, D.L.; Haponik, E.F. Effect on the duration of mechanical ventilation of identifying patients capable of breathing spontaneously. N. Engl. J. Med. 1996, 335, 1864–1869. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Hur, K.; Price, C.P.E.; Gray, E.L.; Gulati, R.K.; Maksimoski, M.; Racette, S.D.; Schneider, A.L.; Khanwalkar, A.R. Factors associated with intubation and prolonged intubation in hospitalized patients with covid-19. Otolaryngol. Head Neck Surg. 2020, 163, 170–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Rouze, A.; Martin-Loeches, I.; Povoa, P.; Makris, D.; Artigas, A.; Bouchereau, M.; Lambiotte, F.; Metzelard, M.; Cuchet, P.; Boulle Geronimi, C.; et al. Relationship between sars-cov-2 infection and the incidence of ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infections: A european multicenter cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2021, 47, 188–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Nseir, S.; Martin-Loeches, I.; Povoa, P.; Metzelard, M.; Du Cheyron, D.; Lambiotte, F.; Tamion, F.; Labruyere, M.; Makris, D.; Boulle Geronimi, C.; et al. Relationship between ventilator-associated pneumonia and mortality in covid-19 patients: A planned ancillary analysis of the covapid cohort. Crit. Care 2021, 25, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. George, P.M.; Wells, A.U.; Jenkins, R.G. Pulmonary fibrosis and covid-19: The potential role for antifibrotic therapy. Lancet Respir. Med. 2020, 8, 807–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Simonnet, A.; Chetboun, M.; Poissy, J.; Raverdy, V.; Noulette, J.; Duhamel, A.; Labreuche, J.; Mathieu, D.; Pattou, F.; Jourdain, M.; et al. High prevalence of obesity in severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (sars-cov-2) requiring invasive mechanical ventilation. Obesity 2020, 28, 1195–1199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. DiNino, E.; Gartman, E.J.; Sethi, J.M.; McCool, F.D. Diaphragm ultrasound as a predictor of successful extubation from mechanical ventilation. Thorax 2014, 69, 423–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  124. Ferrer, M.; Esquinas, A.; Arancibia, F.; Bauer, T.T.; Gonzalez, G.; Carrillo, A.; Rodriguez-Roisin, R.; Torres, A. Noninvasive ventilation during persistent weaning failure: A randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2003, 168, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  125. Nava, S.; Gregoretti, C.; Fanfulla, F.; Squadrone, E.; Grassi, M.; Carlucci, A.; Beltrame, F.; Navalesi, P. Noninvasive ventilation to prevent respiratory failure after extubation in high-risk patients. Crit. Care Med. 2005, 33, 2465–2470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Maggiore, S.M.; Idone, F.A.; Vaschetto, R.; Festa, R.; Cataldo, A.; Antonicelli, F.; Montini, L.; De Gaetano, A.; Navalesi, P.; Antonelli, M. Nasal high-flow versus venturi mask oxygen therapy after extubation. Effects on oxygenation, comfort, and clinical outcome. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2014, 190, 282–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Hernandez, G.; Vaquero, C.; Gonzalez, P.; Subira, C.; Frutos-Vivar, F.; Rialp, G.; Laborda, C.; Colinas, L.; Cuena, R.; Fernandez, R. Effect of postextubation high-flow nasal cannula vs conventional oxygen therapy on reintubation in low-risk patients: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA 2016, 315, 1354–1361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Alshahrani, M.S.; Sindi, A.; Alshamsi, F.; Al-Omari, A.; El Tahan, M.; Alahmadi, B.; Zein, A.; Khatani, N.; Al-Hameed, F.; Alamri, S.; et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe middle east respiratory syndrome coronavirus. Ann. Intensive Care 2018, 8, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Cho, H.J.; Heinsar, S.; Jeong, I.S.; Shekar, K.; Li Bassi, G.; Jung, J.S.; Suen, J.Y.; Fraser, J.F. Ecmo use in covid-19: Lessons from past respiratory virus outbreaks-a narrative review. Crit. Care 2020, 24, 301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. The Australia and New Zealand Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation (ANZ ECMO) Influenza Investigators. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for 2009 influenza a(h1n1) acute respiratory distress syndrome. JAMA 2009, 302, 1888–1895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  131. Barbaro, R.P.; MacLaren, G.; Boonstra, P.S.; Iwashyna, T.J.; Slutsky, A.S.; Fan, E.; Bartlett, R.H.; Tonna, J.E.; Hyslop, R.; Fanning, J.J.; et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation support in covid-19: An international cohort study of the extracorporeal life support organization registry. Lancet 2020, 396, 1071–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Schmidt, M.; Hajage, D.; Lebreton, G.; Monsel, A.; Voiriot, G.; Levy, D.; Baron, E.; Beurton, A.; Chommeloux, J.; Meng, P.; et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for severe acute respiratory distress syndrome associated with covid-19: A retrospective cohort study. Lancet Respir. Med. 2020, 8, 1121–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Yang, X.; Cai, S.; Luo, Y.; Zhu, F.; Hu, M.; Zhao, Y.; Zheng, R.; Li, X.; Hu, B.; Peng, Z. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for coronavirus disease 2019-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome: A multicenter descriptive study. Crit. Care Med. 2020, 48, 1289–1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Zeng, Y.; Cai, Z.; Xianyu, Y.; Yang, B.X.; Song, T.; Yan, Q. Prognosis when using extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ecmo) for critically ill covid-19 patients in china: A retrospective case series. Crit. Care 2020, 24, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  135. Takeda, S. Nationwide system to centralize decisions around extracorporeal membranous oxygenation use for severe covid-19 pneumonia in japan. Acute Med. Surg 2020, 7, e510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Mustafa, A.K.; Alexander, P.J.; Joshi, D.J.; Tabachnick, D.R.; Cross, C.A.; Pappas, P.S.; Tatooles, A.J. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for patients with covid-19 in severe respiratory failure. JAMA Surg. 2020, 155, 990–992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Shekar, K.; Badulak, J.; Peek, G.; Boeken, U.; Dalton, H.J.; Arora, L.; Zakhary, B.; Ramanathan, K.; Starr, J.; Akkanti, B.; et al. Extracorporeal life support organization coronavirus disease 2019 interim guidelines: A consensus document from an international group of interdisciplinary extracorporeal membrane oxygenation providers. ASAIO J. 2020, 66, 707–721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Helms, J.; Tacquard, C.; Severac, F.; Leonard-Lorant, I.; Ohana, M.; Delabranche, X.; Merdji, H.; Clere-Jehl, R.; Schenck, M.; Fagot Gandet, F.; et al. High risk of thrombosis in patients with severe sars-cov-2 infection: A multicenter prospective cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2020, 46, 1089–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Daviet, F.; Guervilly, C.; Baldesi, O.; Bernard-Guervilly, F.; Pilarczyk, E.; Genin, A.; Lefebvre, L.; Forel, J.M.; Papazian, L.; Camoin-Jau, L. Heparin-induced thrombocytopenia in severe covid-19. Circulation 2020, 142, 1875–1877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Beyls, C.; Huette, P.; Abou-Arab, O.; Berna, P.; Mahjoub, Y. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for covid-19-associated severe acute respiratory distress syndrome and risk of thrombosis. Br. J. Anaesth. 2020, 125, e260–e262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Li, X.; Guo, Z.; Huang, J. One disaster after another or a timely help? The role of ecmo for covid-19 patients. ASAIO J. 2020, 66, e111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  142. Villar, J.; Ambros, A.; Soler, J.A.; Martinez, D.; Ferrando, C.; Solano, R.; Mosteiro, F.; Blanco, J.; Martin-Rodriguez, C.; Fernandez, M.M.; et al. Age, pao2/fio2, and plateau pressure score: A proposal for a simple outcome score in patients with the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit. Care Med. 2016, 44, 1361–1369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  143. Shaefi, S.; Brenner, S.K.; Gupta, S.; O’Gara, B.P.; Krajewski, M.L.; Charytan, D.M.; Chaudhry, S.; Mirza, S.H.; Peev, V.; Anderson, M.; et al. Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation in patients with severe respiratory failure from covid-19. Intensive Care Med. 2021, 47, 208–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Table
Table 1. Ventilator and non-ventilator strategies during controlled mechanical ventilation.
Table 1. Ventilator and non-ventilator strategies during controlled mechanical ventilation.
STRATEGYTARGETRATIONALE-CONSIDERATIONSQuality of Evidence
Ventilator strategies
FiO2SaO2To avoid complications related to either hyperoxia or hypoxiaControversial
Tidal volume≤6 mL/kg/PBWLow tidal volume improves outcome in patients with ARDS.High
Pplat < 30 cmH2OPplat as a surrogate of stressLow
PL at end-inspiration < 18–20 cmH2OThe stress in the lungs at a given lung volume. Consider in patients with suspected high chest wall elastance Low
ΔP < 14 cmH2OIndividualizes VT to functional lung size (Crs). The strongest predictor of mortality in recent studies. High
PEEPIndividualizedbased on assessment of lung recruitability Improves inhomogeneity by recruiting closed alveoli and preventing cyclic collapseConsider higher PEEP in patients with high lung recruitability High
PL at end -expiration > 0 cmH2OConsidered in patients with suspected high pleural pressure High
Non-ventilator strategies
Prone positionUp to 36 h/sessionsIncreases lung homogeneity and size of aerated lung; improves V/Q inaqualities and decrease shuntConsider proning early in the course of mechanical ventilation in patients with moderate to severe ARDSHigh
Neuromuscular blockade<48 h infusion (Cisatracurium) Considered in patients with severe hypoxemia, significant patient–ventilator asynchrony that restrains lung-protective ventilation, and in patients with markedly high respiratory drive despite deep sedationControversial
PBW = predicted body weight; Pplat = end-inspiratory pressure; PL = Transpulmonary pressure; ΔP = Driving pressure; Crs = Respiratory system compliance.
Table
Table 2. Important points to consider during assisted mechanical ventilation.
Table 2. Important points to consider during assisted mechanical ventilation.
Vigorous spontaneous efforts during AMV (may increase lung stress/and strain)
  • Assess inspiratory efforts by monitoring transpulmonary swing pressures
Increased respiratory drive may be deleterious
  • Assess P0.1, ΔPocc
Patient–Ventilator Asynchrony (most commonly with increased respiratory drive, excessive sedation, and hyperinflation)
  • Assess especially for ineffective efforts, autotriggering, and double triggering (or other types of asynchrony)
Airway Pressures (are associated with major outcomes in ARDS)
  • Assess Driving Pressure and Ppl
Vigorous spontaneous efforts during AMV may increase lung stress/and strain
  • Asses inspiratory efforts by monitoring transpulmonary swing pressures
AMV = Assisted Mechanical Ventilation; P0.1 = airway occlusion pressure; ΔPOcc = airway pressure swing generated by respiratory muscle effort when the airway is briefly occluded; ARDS = Acute Respiratory Disease Syndrome; Ppl = Plateau airway pressure.
Table
Table 3. Pathophysiologic factors associated with weaning failure.
Table 3. Pathophysiologic factors associated with weaning failure.
Neurological factorsDecreased respiratory center output, electrolyte disorders, sedation, and sleep apnea
Phrenic nerve dysfunction
Muscle pump dysfunctionHyperinflation, acidosis-electrolyte disorders, malnutrition, and critical ilness neuromyopathy
Diaphragmatic dysfunction
Increased ventilation demandsIncreased CO2 production
Dead-space ventilation
Increased mechanical loadIncreased airway resistance (tube, central, or smaller airways)
Reduced lung compliance (alveolar filling, atelectasis, and fibrosis)
Increased chest wall elastance
Reduced lung elastic recoil (COPD)
Intrinsic PEEP
CardiovascularIncreased metabolic demand
Increased venous return
Increased left ventricular afterload
Endocrine dysfunctionHypothyroidism and myxedema
Psychological factorsAnxiety, delirium, and sleep deprivation
Table
Table 4. Indications and contraindications for ECMO use in COVID-19 patients.
Table 4. Indications and contraindications for ECMO use in COVID-19 patients.
Indications
  • Refractory hypoxemia and worsening hypercapnia despite optimal ventilation strategies (neuromuscular blockade, prone positioning, high PEEP, and inhaled nitric oxide)
  • Mechanical ventilation <7 days
  • Should be considered when risk of death is estimated to be greater than 50% and start when it reaches or exceeds 80%
  • Severe air leak syndrome
  • Complicated with severe myocarditis or cardiogenic shock
Contraindications
Absolute
  • Significant or multiple comorbidities that cannot be recovered
  • Severe immunosuppression
  • Sepsis and bacteremia
  • Contraindications to systemic anticoagulation
  • Severe multiple organ failure
  • Severe aortic dissection
  • Acute intracerebral hemorrhage
  • Irreversible severe brain damage
  • Critical congenital heart disease
  • Chronic lung disease/uncontrolled metastatic disease
  • Lethal chromosomal anomalies (e.g., trisomy 13 or 18)
Relative
  • Age ≥65 years
  • Obesity (BMI > 30)
  • Prolonged ventilatory support
  • Frailty
  • Allosensitization with prolonged waitlist time
  • Limitations in vascular access
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kondili, E.; Makris, D.; Georgopoulos, D.; Rovina, N.; Kotanidou, A.; Koutsoukou, A. COVID-19 ARDS: Points to Be Considered in Mechanical Ventilation and Weaning. J. Pers. Med. 2021, 11, 1109. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11111109

AMA Style

Kondili E, Makris D, Georgopoulos D, Rovina N, Kotanidou A, Koutsoukou A. COVID-19 ARDS: Points to Be Considered in Mechanical Ventilation and Weaning. Journal of Personalized Medicine. 2021; 11(11):1109. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11111109

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kondili, Eumorfia, Demosthenes Makris, Dimitrios Georgopoulos, Nikoletta Rovina, Anastasia Kotanidou, and Antonia Koutsoukou. 2021. "COVID-19 ARDS: Points to Be Considered in Mechanical Ventilation and Weaning" Journal of Personalized Medicine 11, no. 11: 1109. https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm11111109

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop