High vs Low PEEP in Patients With ARDS Exhibiting Intense Inspiratory Effort During Assisted Ventilation: A Randomized Crossover Trial.

BACKGROUND: Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) can potentially modulate inspiratory effort (ΔPes), which is the major determinant of self-inflicted lung injury. RESEARCH QUESTION: Does high PEEP reduce ΔPes in patients with moderate-to-severe ARDS on assisted ventilation? STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Sixteen patients with Pao2/Fio2 ≤ 200 mm Hg and ΔPes ≥ 10 cm H2O underwent a randomized sequence of four ventilator settings: PEEP = 5 cm H2O or PEEP = 15 cm H2O + synchronous (pressure support ventilation [PSV]) or asynchronous (pressure-controlled intermittent mandatory ventilation [PC-IMV]) inspiratory assistance. ΔPes and respiratory system, lung, and chest wall mechanics were assessed with esophageal manometry and occlusions. PEEP-induced alveolar recruitment and overinflation, lung dynamic strain, and tidal volume distribution were assessed with electrical impedance tomography. RESULTS: ΔPes was not systematically different at high vs low PEEP (pressure support ventilation: median, 20 cm H2O; interquartile range (IQR), 15-24 cm H2O vs median, 15 cm H2O; IQR, 13-23 cm H2O; P = .24; pressure-controlled intermittent mandatory ventilation: median, 20; IQR, 18-23 vs median, 19; IQR, 17-25; P = .67, respectively). Similarly, respiratory system and transpulmonary driving pressures, tidal volume, lung/chest wall mechanics, and pendelluft extent were not different between study phases. High PEEP resulted in lower or higher ΔPes, respiratory system driving pressure, and transpulmonary driving pressure according to whether this increased or decreased respiratory system compliance (r = -0.85, P < .001; r = -0.75, P < .001; r = -0.80, P < .001, respectively). PEEP-induced changes in respiratory system compliance were driven by its lung component and were dependent on the extent of PEEP-induced alveolar overinflation (r = -0.66, P = .006). High PEEP caused variable recruitment and systematic redistribution of tidal volume toward dorsal lung regions, thereby reducing dynamic strain in ventral areas (pressure support ventilation: median, 0.49; IQR, 0.37-0.83 vs median, 0.96; IQR, 0.62-1.56; P = .003; pressure-controlled intermittent mandatory ventilation: median, 0.65; IQR, 0.42-1.31 vs median, 1.14; IQR, 0.79-1.52; P = .002). All results were consistent during synchronous and asynchronous inspiratory assistance. INTERPRETATION: The impact of high PEEP on ΔPes and lung stress is interindividually variable according to different effects on the respiratory system and lung compliance resulting from alveolar overinflation. High PEEP may help mitigate the risk of self-inflicted lung injury solely if it increases lung/respiratory system compliance. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov; No.: NCT04241874; URL: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov.

Physiological effects of awake prone position in acute hypoxemic respiratory failure.

BACKGROUND: The effects of awake prone position on the breathing pattern of hypoxemic patients need to be better understood. We conducted a crossover trial to assess the physiological effects of awake prone position in patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. METHODS: Fifteen patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mmHg underwent high-flow nasal oxygen for 1 h in supine position and 2 h in prone position, followed by a final 1-h supine phase. At the end of each study phase, the following parameters were measured: arterial blood gases, inspiratory effort (ΔPES), transpulmonary driving pressure (ΔPL), respiratory rate and esophageal pressure simplified pressure-time product per minute (sPTPES) by esophageal manometry, tidal volume (VT), end-expiratory lung impedance (EELI), lung compliance, airway resistance, time constant, dynamic strain (VT/EELI) and pendelluft extent through electrical impedance tomography. RESULTS: Compared to supine position, prone position increased PaO2/FiO2 (median [Interquartile range] 104 mmHg [76-129] vs. 74 [69-93], p < 0.001), reduced respiratory rate (24 breaths/min [22-26] vs. 27 [26-30], p = 0.05) and increased ΔPES (12 cmH2O [11-13] vs. 9 [8-12], p = 0.04) with similar sPTPES (131 [75-154] cmH2O s min-1 vs. 105 [81-129], p > 0.99) and ΔPL (9 [7-11] cmH2O vs. 8 [5-9], p = 0.17). Airway resistance and time constant were higher in prone vs. supine position (9 cmH2O s arbitrary units-3 [4-11] vs. 6 [4-9], p = 0.05; 0.53 s [0.32-61] vs. 0.40 [0.37-0.44], p = 0.03). Prone position increased EELI (3887 arbitrary units [3414-8547] vs. 1456 [959-2420], p = 0.002) and promoted VT distribution towards dorsal lung regions without affecting VT size and lung compliance: this generated lower dynamic strain (0.21 [0.16-0.24] vs. 0.38 [0.30-0.49], p = 0.004). The magnitude of pendelluft phenomenon was not different between study phases (55% [7-57] of VT in prone vs. 31% [14-55] in supine position, p > 0.99). CONCLUSIONS: Prone position improves oxygenation, increases EELI and promotes VT distribution towards dependent lung regions without affecting VT size, ΔPL, lung compliance and pendelluft magnitude. Prone position reduces respiratory rate and increases ΔPES because of positional increases in airway resistance and prolonged expiratory time. Because high ΔPES is the main mechanistic determinant of self-inflicted lung injury, caution may be needed in using awake prone position in patients exhibiting intense ΔPES. Clinical trail registeration: The study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov (NCT03095300) on March 29, 2017.

Recruitment-to-inflation Ratio Assessed through Sequential End-expiratory Lung Volume Measurement in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) benefits in acute respiratory distress syndrome are driven by lung dynamic strain reduction. This depends on the variable extent of alveolar recruitment. The recruitment-to-inflation ratio estimates recruitability across a 10-cm H2O PEEP range through a simplified maneuver. Whether recruitability is uniform or not across this range is unknown. The hypotheses of this study are that the recruitment-to-inflation ratio represents an accurate estimate of PEEP-induced changes in dynamic strain, but may show nonuniform behavior across the conventionally tested PEEP range (15 to 5 cm H2O). METHODS: Twenty patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome underwent a decremental PEEP trial (PEEP 15 to 13 to 10 to 8 to 5 cm H2O). Respiratory mechanics and end-expiratory lung volume by nitrogen dilution were measured the end of each step. Gas exchange, recruited volume, recruitment-to-inflation ratio, and changes in dynamic, static, and total strain were computed between 15 and 5 cm H2O (global recruitment-to-inflation ratio) and within narrower PEEP ranges (granular recruitment-to-inflation ratio). RESULTS: Between 15 and 5 cm H2O, median [interquartile range] global recruitment-to-inflation ratio was 1.27 [0.40 to 1.69] and displayed a linear correlation with PEEP-induced dynamic strain reduction (r = -0.94; P < 0.001). Intraindividual recruitment-to-inflation ratio variability within the narrower ranges was high (85% [70 to 109]). The relationship between granular recruitment-to-inflation ratio and PEEP was mathematically described by a nonlinear, quadratic equation (R2 = 0.96). Granular recruitment-to-inflation ratio across the narrower PEEP ranges itself had a linear correlation with PEEP-induced reduction in dynamic strain (r = -0.89; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Both global and granular recruitment-to-inflation ratio accurately estimate PEEP-induced changes in lung dynamic strain. However, the effect of 10 cm H2O of PEEP on lung strain may be nonuniform. Granular recruitment-to-inflation ratio assessment within narrower PEEP ranges guided by end-expiratory lung volume measurement may aid more precise PEEP selection, especially when the recruitment-to-inflation ratio obtained with the simplified maneuver between PEEP 15 and 5 cm H2O yields intermediate values that are difficult to interpret for a proper choice between a high and low PEEP strategy.

Respective Effects of Helmet Pressure Support, Continuous Positive Airway Pressure, and Nasal High-Flow in Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: A Randomized Crossover Clinical Trial.

Rationale: The respective effects of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and pressure support delivered through the helmet interface in patients with hypoxemia need to be better understood. Objectives: To assess the respective effects of helmet pressure support (noninvasive ventilation [NIV]) and continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) compared with high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO) on effort to breathe, lung inflation, and gas exchange in patients with hypoxemia (PaO2/FiO2 ⩽ 200). Methods: Fifteen patients underwent 1-hour phases (constant FiO2) of HFNO (60 L/min), helmet NIV (PEEP = 14 cm H2O, pressure support = 12 cm H2O), and CPAP (PEEP = 14 cm H2O) in randomized sequence. Measurements and Main Results: Inspiratory esophageal (ΔPES) and transpulmonary pressure (ΔPL) swings were used as surrogates for inspiratory effort and lung distension, respectively. Tidal Volume (Vt) and end-expiratory lung volume were assessed with electrical impedance tomography. ΔPES was lower during NIV versus CPAP and HFNO (median [interquartile range], 5 [3-9] cm H2O vs. 13 [10-19] cm H2O vs. 10 [8-13] cm H2O; P = 0.001 and P = 0.01). ΔPL was not statistically different between treatments. PaO2/FiO2 ratio was significantly higher during NIV and CPAP versus HFNO (166 [136-215] and 175 [158-281] vs. 120 [107-149]; P = 0.002 and P = 0.001). NIV and CPAP similarly increased Vt versus HFNO (mean change, 70% [95% confidence interval (CI), 17-122%], P = 0.02; 93% [95% CI, 30-155%], P = 0.002) and end-expiratory lung volume (mean change, 198% [95% CI, 67-330%], P = 0.001; 263% [95% CI, 121-407%], P = 0.001), mostly due to increased aeration/ventilation in dorsal lung regions. During HFNO, 14 of 15 patients had pendelluft involving >10% of Vt; pendelluft was mitigated by CPAP and further by NIV. Conclusions: Compared with HFNO, helmet NIV, but not CPAP, reduced ΔPES. CPAP and NIV similarly increased oxygenation, end-expiratory lung volume, and Vt, without affecting ΔPL. NIV, and to a lesser extent CPAP, mitigated pendelluft. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04241861).

Helmet noninvasive support for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure: rationale, mechanism of action and bedside application.

INTRODUCTION: Helmet noninvasive support may provide advantages over other noninvasive oxygenation strategies in the management of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. In this narrative review based on a systematic search of the literature, we summarize the rationale, mechanism of action and technicalities for helmet support in hypoxemic patients. MAIN RESULTS: In hypoxemic patients, helmet can facilitate noninvasive application of continuous positive-airway pressure or pressure-support ventilation via a hood interface that seals at the neck and is secured by straps under the arms. Helmet use requires specific settings. Continuous positive-airway pressure is delivered through a high-flow generator or a Venturi system connected to the inspiratory port of the interface, and a positive end-expiratory pressure valve place at the expiratory port of the helmet;  alternatively, pressure-support ventilation is delivered by connecting the helmet to a mechanical ventilator through a bi-tube circuit. The helmet interface allows continuous treatments with high positive end-expiratory pressure with good patient comfort. Preliminary data suggest that helmet noninvasive ventilation (NIV) may provide physiological benefits compared to other noninvasive oxygenation strategies (conventional oxygen, facemask NIV, high-flow nasal oxygen) in non-hypercapnic patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxemia (PaO2/FiO2 ≤ 200 mmHg), possibly because higher positive end-expiratory pressure (10-15 cmH2O) can be applied for prolonged periods with good tolerability. This improves oxygenation, limits ventilator inhomogeneities, and may attenuate the potential harm of lung and diaphragm injury caused by vigorous inspiratory effort. The potential superiority of helmet support for reducing the risk of intubation has been hypothesized in small, pilot randomized trials and in a network metanalysis. CONCLUSIONS: Helmet noninvasive support represents a promising tool for the initial management of patients with severe hypoxemic respiratory failure. Currently, the lack of confidence with this and technique and the absence of conclusive data regarding its efficacy render helmet use limited to specific settings, with expert and trained personnel. As per other noninvasive oxygenation strategies, careful clinical and physiological monitoring during the treatment is essential to early identify treatment failure and avoid delays in intubation.

Dyspnoea and clinical outcome in critically ill patients receiving noninvasive support for COVID-19 respiratory failure: post hoc analysis of a randomised clinical trial.

In #COVID19 patients, presence of moderate-to-severe dyspnoea is a marker of disease severity correlated to clinical outcomes https://bit.ly/3Bp2G1b.

Effect of Helmet Noninvasive Ventilation vs High-Flow Nasal Oxygen on Days Free of Respiratory Support in Patients With COVID-19 and Moderate to Severe Hypoxemic Respiratory Failure: The HENIVOT Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: High-flow nasal oxygen is recommended as initial treatment for acute hypoxemic respiratory failure and is widely applied in patients with COVID-19. Objective: To assess whether helmet noninvasive ventilation can increase the days free of respiratory support in patients with COVID-19 compared with high-flow nasal oxygen alone. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter randomized clinical trial in 4 intensive care units (ICUs) in Italy between October and December 2020, end of follow-up February 11, 2021, including 109 patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemic respiratory failure (ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to fraction of inspired oxygen ≤200). Interventions: Participants were randomly assigned to receive continuous treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation (positive end-expiratory pressure, 10-12 cm H2O; pressure support, 10-12 cm H2O) for at least 48 hours eventually followed by high-flow nasal oxygen (n = 54) or high-flow oxygen alone (60 L/min) (n = 55). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days after enrollment. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who required endotracheal intubation within 28 days from study enrollment, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 28, the number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation at day 60, in-ICU mortality, in-hospital mortality, 28-day mortality, 60-day mortality, ICU length of stay, and hospital length of stay. Results: Among 110 patients who were randomized, 109 (99%) completed the trial (median age, 65 years [interquartile range {IQR}, 55-70]; 21 women [19%]). The median days free of respiratory support within 28 days after randomization were 20 (IQR, 0-25) in the helmet group and 18 (IQR, 0-22) in the high-flow nasal oxygen group, a difference that was not statistically significant (mean difference, 2 days [95% CI, -2 to 6]; P = .26). Of 9 prespecified secondary outcomes reported, 7 showed no significant difference. The rate of endotracheal intubation was significantly lower in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (30% vs 51%; difference, -21% [95% CI, -38% to -3%]; P = .03). The median number of days free of invasive mechanical ventilation within 28 days was significantly higher in the helmet group than in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (28 [IQR, 13-28] vs 25 [IQR 4-28]; mean difference, 3 days [95% CI, 0-7]; P = .04). The rate of in-hospital mortality was 24% in the helmet group and 25% in the high-flow nasal oxygen group (absolute difference, -1% [95% CI, -17% to 15%]; P > .99). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with COVID-19 and moderate to severe hypoxemia, treatment with helmet noninvasive ventilation, compared with high-flow nasal oxygen, resulted in no significant difference in the number of days free of respiratory support within 28 days. Further research is warranted to determine effects on other outcomes, including the need for endotracheal intubation. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04502576.