tetano
Editor, Senior Moderator
J Intensive Care Med
. 2023 Oct 20:8850666231207303.
doi: 10.1177/08850666231207303. Online ahead of print. Airway Pressure Release Ventilation in COVID-19-Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome-A Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Analysis
Jan-Hendrik Naendrup[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Jonathan Steinke[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Jorge Garcia Borrega[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Sandra Emily Stoll[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Per Ole Michelsen[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Yannick Assion[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Alexander Shimabukuro-Vornhagen[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Dennis Alexander Eichenauer[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Matthias Kochanek[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Boris Böll[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP]
Affiliations
Background: There are limited and partially contradictory data on the effects of airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) in COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS). Therefore, we analyzed the clinical outcome, complications, and longitudinal course of ventilation parameters and laboratory values in patients with CARDS, who were mechanically ventilated using APRV. Methods: Respective data from 4 intensive care units (ICUs) were collected and compared to a matched cohort of patients receiving conventional low tidal volume ventilation (LTV). Propensity score matching was performed based on age, sex, blood gas analysis, and APACHE II score at admission, as well as the implementation of prone positioning. Findings: Forty patients with CARDS, who were mechanically ventilated using APRV, and 40 patients receiving LTV were matched. No significant differences were detected for tidal volumes per predicted body weight, peak pressure values, and blood gas analyses on admission, 6 h post admission as well as on day 3 and day 7. Regarding ICU survival, no significant difference was identified between APRV patients (40%) and LTV patients (42%). Median duration of mechanical ventilation and duration of ICU treatment were comparable in both groups. Similar complication rates with respect to ventilator-associated pneumonia, septic shock, thromboembolic events, barotrauma, as well as the necessity for hemodialysis were detected for both groups. Clinical characteristics that were associated with increased mortality in a Cox proportional hazards regression analysis included age (hazard ratio
1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.1; P < .001), severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (HR 2.62, 95% CI 1.02-6.7; P = .046) and the occurrence of septic shock (HR 17.18, 95% CI 2.06-143.2; P = .009), but not the ventilation mode. Interpretation: Intensive care unit survival, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU treatment as well as ventilation-associated complication rates were equivalent using APRV compared to conventional LTV in patients with CARDS.
Keywords: COVID19-associated ARDS (CARDS); acute respiratory distress syndrome; airway pressure release ventilation; coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19); low tidal volume ventilation; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).
. 2023 Oct 20:8850666231207303.
doi: 10.1177/08850666231207303. Online ahead of print. Airway Pressure Release Ventilation in COVID-19-Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome-A Multicenter Propensity Score-Matched Analysis
Jan-Hendrik Naendrup[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Jonathan Steinke[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Jorge Garcia Borrega[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Sandra Emily Stoll[SUP] 3 [/SUP], Per Ole Michelsen[SUP] 4 [/SUP], Yannick Assion[SUP] 5 [/SUP], Alexander Shimabukuro-Vornhagen[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Dennis Alexander Eichenauer[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Matthias Kochanek[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP], Boris Böll[SUP] 1 2 [/SUP]
Affiliations
- PMID: 37861125
- DOI: 10.1177/08850666231207303
Background: There are limited and partially contradictory data on the effects of airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) in COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (CARDS). Therefore, we analyzed the clinical outcome, complications, and longitudinal course of ventilation parameters and laboratory values in patients with CARDS, who were mechanically ventilated using APRV. Methods: Respective data from 4 intensive care units (ICUs) were collected and compared to a matched cohort of patients receiving conventional low tidal volume ventilation (LTV). Propensity score matching was performed based on age, sex, blood gas analysis, and APACHE II score at admission, as well as the implementation of prone positioning. Findings: Forty patients with CARDS, who were mechanically ventilated using APRV, and 40 patients receiving LTV were matched. No significant differences were detected for tidal volumes per predicted body weight, peak pressure values, and blood gas analyses on admission, 6 h post admission as well as on day 3 and day 7. Regarding ICU survival, no significant difference was identified between APRV patients (40%) and LTV patients (42%). Median duration of mechanical ventilation and duration of ICU treatment were comparable in both groups. Similar complication rates with respect to ventilator-associated pneumonia, septic shock, thromboembolic events, barotrauma, as well as the necessity for hemodialysis were detected for both groups. Clinical characteristics that were associated with increased mortality in a Cox proportional hazards regression analysis included age (hazard ratio
1.08, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.04-1.1; P < .001), severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (HR 2.62, 95% CI 1.02-6.7; P = .046) and the occurrence of septic shock (HR 17.18, 95% CI 2.06-143.2; P = .009), but not the ventilation mode. Interpretation: Intensive care unit survival, duration of mechanical ventilation, and ICU treatment as well as ventilation-associated complication rates were equivalent using APRV compared to conventional LTV in patients with CARDS.
Keywords: COVID19-associated ARDS (CARDS); acute respiratory distress syndrome; airway pressure release ventilation; coronavirus-19 disease (COVID-19); low tidal volume ventilation; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2).