Novel Oxygenation and Saturation Indices for Mortality Prediction in COVID-19 ARDS Patients: The Impact of Driving Pressure and Mechanical Power.

Background: The oxygenation index (OI) and oxygen saturation index (OSI) are proven mortality predictors in pediatric and adult patients, traditionally using mean airway pressure (Pmean). We introduce novel indices, replacing Pmean with DP (ΔPinsp), MPdyn, and MPtot, assessing their potential for predicting COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) mortality, comparing them to traditional indices. Methods: We studied 361 adult COVID-19 ARDS patients for 7 days, collecting ΔPinsp, MPdyn, and MPtot, OI-ΔPinsp, OI-MPdyn, OI-MPtot, OSI-ΔPinsp, OSI-MPdyn, and OSI-MPtot. We compared these in surviving and non-surviving patients over the first 7 intensive care unit (ICU) days using Mann-Whitney U test. Logistic regression receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis assessed AUC and CI values for ICU mortality on day three. We determined cut-off values using Youden's method and conducted multivariate Cox regression on parameter limits. Results: All indices showed significant differences between surviving and non-surviving patients on the third day of ICU care. The AUC values of OI-ΔPinsp were significantly higher than those of P/F and OI-Pmean (P values .0002 and <.0001, respectively). Similarly, AUC and CI values of OSI-ΔPinsp and OSI-MPdyn were significantly higher than those of SpO2/FiO2 and OSI-Pmean values (OSI-ΔPinsp: P < .0001, OSI-MPdyn: P values .047 and .028, respectively). OI-ΔPinsp, OSI-ΔPinsp, OI-MPdyn, OSI-MPdyn, OI-MPtot, and OSI-MPtot had AUC values of 0.72, 0.71, 0.69, 0.68, 0.66, and 0.64, respectively, with cut-off values associated with hazard ratios and P values of 7.06 (HR = 1.84, P = .002), 8.04 (HR = 2.00, P ≤ .0001), 7.12 (HR = 1.68, P = .001), 5.76 (HR = 1.70, P ≤ .0001), 10.43 (HR = 1.52, P = .006), and 10.68 (HR = 1.66, P = .001), respectively. Conclusions: Critical values of all indices were associated to higher ICU mortality rates and extended mechanical ventilation durations. The OI-ΔPinsp, OSI-ΔPinsp, and OSI-MPdyn indices displayed the strongest predictive capabilities for ICU mortality. These novel indices offer valuable insights for intensivists in the clinical management and decision-making process for ARDS patients.

The effect of anesthetic agents on intraocular pressure during laparoscopic gynecological surgery performed in the Trendelenburg position: A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Intraocular pressure (IOP) increases due to pneumoperitoneum and the Trendelenburg position during laparo-scopic surgery. Apart from ketamine and suxamethonium, anesthetic agents generally reduce IOP by various extents. The present study investigated the effects of combinations of four anesthetic agents on IOP during laparoscopic gynecological surgery. METHODS: Patients (n=100) were assigned to one of the four groups: Group 1 (n=25; pentothal induction + desflurane/remifen-tanil maintenance), Group 2 (n=25; propofol induction + sevoflurane/remifentanil maintenance), Group 3 (n=25; propofol induction + desflurane/remifentanil maintenance), and Group 4 (n=25; pentothal induction + sevoflurane/remifentanil maintenance). The IOPs recorded before anesthesia induction, after intubation, after carbon dioxide insufflation, in the Trendelenburg position, and after ex-tubation were compared among the groups. Hemodynamic parameters were also evaluated. RESULTS: Induction in Group 2 and Group 3 used propofol. When the IOP in the Trendelenburg position was compared with the IOP before induction, there was no statistically significant difference in Groups 2 and 3 (p>0.05). In Groups 1 and 4, pentothal was used for induction. The IOP in Groups 1 and 4 was statistically significantly higher in the Trendelenburg position than it was before induction (0.027-0.001). CONCLUSION: To minimize the variation in IOP in the Trendelenburg position during laparoscopic gynecological surgeries, we recommend the use of propofol for induction, independent of desflurane or sevoflurane use.

Comparison of Respiratory and Hemodynamic Parameters of COVID-19 and Non-COVID-19 ARDS Patients.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 can cause a clinical spectrum from asymptomatic disease to life-threatening respiratory failure and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). There is an ongoing discussion whether the clinical presentation and ventilatory parameters are the same as typical ARDS or not. There is no clear understanding of how the hemodynamic parameters have been affected in COVID-19 ARDS patients. We aimed to compare hemodynamic and respiratory parameters of moderate and severe COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS patients. These patients were monitored with an advanced hemodynamic measurement system by the transpulmonary thermodilution method in prone and supine positions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data of 17 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and 16 patients diagnosed with other types of diseases with moderate and severe ARDS, mechanically ventilated, placed in a prone position, had advanced hemodynamic measurements with PiCCO, and stayed in the intensive care unit for more than a week were analyzed retrospectively. Patient characteristics and arterial blood gases analysis recorded at admission and respiratory and advanced hemodynamic parameters during the first week were compared in prone and supine positions. RESULTS: No difference was observed in the respiratory parameters including respiratory system compliance between COVID-19 and non-COVD-19 patients in prone and supine positions. In comparison of advanced hemodynamic parameters in the first week of intensive care, the extravascular lung water and pulmonary vascular permeability indexes measured in supine position of COVID-19 ARDS patients were found to be significantly higher than non-COVID-19 patients. Duration of prone position was significantly longer in patients diagnosed with COVID-19 ARDS. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggested that COVID-19 ARDS is a variant of typical ARDS with a different pathophysiology. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Asar S, Acicbe Ö, Sabaz MS, Tontu F, Canan E, Cukurova Z, et al. Comparison of Respiratory and Hemodynamic Parameters of COVID-19 and Non-COVID-19 ARDS Patients. Indian J Crit Care Med 2021;25(6):704-708.