Driving pressure, as opposed to tidal volume based on predicted body weight, is associated with mortality: results from a prospective cohort of COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between driving pressure and tidal volume based on predicted body weight and mortality in a cohort of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study that included patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to COVID-19 admitted to two intensive care units. We performed multivariable analyses to determine whether driving pressure and tidal volume/kg predicted body weight on the first day of mechanical ventilation, as independent variables, are associated with hospital mortality. RESULTS: We included 231 patients. The mean age was 64 (53 - 74) years, and the mean Simplified Acute and Physiology Score 3 score was 45 (39 - 54). The hospital mortality rate was 51.9%. Driving pressure was independently associated with hospital mortality (odds ratio 1.21, 95%CI 1.04 - 1.41 for each cm H2O increase in driving pressure, p = 0.01). Based on a double stratification analysis, we found that for the same level of tidal volume/kg predicted body weight, the risk of hospital death increased with increasing driving pressure. However, changes in tidal volume/kg predicted body weight were not associated with mortality when they did not lead to an increase in driving pressure. CONCLUSION: In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome caused by COVID-19, exposure to higher driving pressure, as opposed to higher tidal volume/kg predicted body weight, is associated with greater mortality. These results suggest that driving pressure might be a primary target for lung-protective mechanical ventilation in these patients.

Embedding Pulmonary Rehabilitation for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease in the Home and Community Setting: A Rapid Review.

This paper presents a rapid review of the literature for the components, benefits, barriers, and facilitators of pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) people in-home and community-based settings. seventy-six studies were included: 57 home-based pulmonary rehabilitation (HBPR) studies and 19 community-based pulmonary rehabilitation (CBPR) studies. The benefits of HBPR on exercise capacity and health-related quality of life were observed in one-group studies, studies comparing HBPR to usual care, and studies comparing to hospital-based pulmonary rehabilitation, although the benefits were less pronounced in the latter. HBPR reduced hospital admissions compared to usual care and was more cost-effective than hospital pulmonary rehabilitation. Most HBPRs were designed with low-density or customized equipment, are minimally supervised, and have a low intensity of training. Although the HBPR has flexibility and no travel burden, participants with severe disease, physical frailty, and complex comorbidities had barriers to complying with HBPR. The telerehabilitation program, a facilitator for HBPR, is feasible and safe. CBPR was offered in-person supervision, despite being limited to physical therapists in most studies. Benefits in exercise capacity were shown in almost all studies, but the improvement in health-related quality of life was controversial. Patients reported the benefits that facilities where they attended the CBPR including social support and the presence of an instructor. They also reported barriers, such as poor physical condition, transport difficulties, and family commitments. Despite the minimal infrastructure offered, HBPR and CBPR are feasible, safe, and provide clinical benefits to patients with COPD. Home and community settings are excellent opportunities to expand the offer of pulmonary rehabilitation programs, as long as they follow protocols that ensure quality and safety following current guidelines.