Lung distribution of gas and blood volume in critically ill COVID-19 patients: a quantitative dual-energy computed tomography study.

BACKGROUND: Critically ill COVID-19 patients have pathophysiological lung features characterized by perfusion abnormalities. However, to date no study has evaluated whether the changes in the distribution of pulmonary gas and blood volume are associated with the severity of gas-exchange impairment and the type of respiratory support (non-invasive versus invasive) in patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. METHODS: This was a single-center, retrospective cohort study conducted in a tertiary care hospital in Northern Italy during the first pandemic wave. Pulmonary gas and blood distribution was assessed using a technique for quantitative analysis of dual-energy computed tomography. Lung aeration loss (reflected by percentage of normally aerated lung tissue) and the extent of gas:blood volume mismatch (percentage of non-aerated, perfused lung tissue-shunt; aerated, non-perfused dead space; and non-aerated/non-perfused regions) were evaluated in critically ill COVID-19 patients with different clinical severity as reflected by the need for non-invasive or invasive respiratory support. RESULTS: Thirty-five patients admitted to the intensive care unit between February 29th and May 30th, 2020 were included. Patients requiring invasive versus non-invasive mechanical ventilation had both a lower percentage of normally aerated lung tissue (median [interquartile range] 33% [24-49%] vs. 63% [44-68%], p < 0.001); and a larger extent of gas:blood volume mismatch (43% [30-49%] vs. 25% [14-28%], p = 0.001), due to higher shunt (23% [15-32%] vs. 5% [2-16%], p = 0.001) and non-aerated/non perfused regions (5% [3-10%] vs. 1% [0-2%], p = 0.001). The PaO2/FiO2 ratio correlated positively with normally aerated tissue (ρ = 0.730, p < 0.001) and negatively with the extent of gas-blood volume mismatch (ρ = - 0.633, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In critically ill patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, the need for invasive mechanical ventilation and oxygenation impairment were associated with loss of aeration and the extent of gas:blood volume mismatch.

Respiratory mechanics and mechanical power during low vs. high positive end-expiratory pressure in obese surgical patients - A sub-study of the PROBESE randomized controlled trial.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We aimed to characterize intra-operative mechanical ventilation with low or high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment manoeuvres (RM) regarding intra-tidal recruitment/derecruitment and overdistension using non-linear respiratory mechanics, and mechanical power in obese surgical patients enrolled in the PROBESE trial. DESIGN: Prospective, two-centre substudy of the international, multicentre, two-arm, randomized-controlled PROBESE trial. SETTING: Operating rooms of two European University Hospitals. PATIENTS: Forty-eight adult obese patients undergoing abdominal surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Intra-operative protective ventilation with either PEEP of 12 cmH2O and repeated RM (HighPEEP+RM) or 4 cmH2O without RM (LowPEEP). MEASUREMENTS: The index of intra-tidal recruitment/de-recruitment and overdistension (%E2) as well as airway pressure, tidal volume (VT), respiratory rate (RR), resistance, elastance, and mechanical power (MP) were calculated from respiratory signals recorded after anesthesia induction, 1 h thereafter, and end of surgery (EOS). MAIN RESULTS: Twenty-four patients were analyzed in each group. PEEP was higher (mean ± SD, 11.7 ± 0.4 vs. 3.7 ± 0.6 cmH2O, P < 0.001) and driving pressure lower (12.8 ± 3.5 vs. 21.7 ± 6.8 cmH2O, P < 0.001) during HighPEEP+RM than LowPEEP, while VT and RR did not differ significantly (7.3 ± 0.6 vs. 7.4 ± 0.8 ml∙kg-1, P = 0.835; and 14.6 ± 2.5 vs. 15.7 ± 2.0 min-1, P = 0.150, respectively). %E2 was higher in HighPEEP+RM than in LowPEEP following induction (-3.1 ± 7.2 vs. -12.4 ± 10.2%; P < 0.001) and subsequent timepoints. Total resistance and elastance (13.3 ± 3.8 vs. 17.7 ± 6.8 cmH2O∙l∙s-2, P = 0.009; and 15.7 ± 5.5 vs. 28.5 ± 8.4 cmH2O∙l, P < 0.001, respectively) were lower during HighPEEP+RM than LowPEEP. Additionally, MP was lower in HighPEEP+RM than LowPEEP group (5.0 ± 2.2 vs. 10.4 ± 4.7 J∙min-1, P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In this sub-cohort of PROBESE, intra-operative ventilation with high PEEP and RM reduced intra-tidal recruitment/de-recruitment as well as driving pressure, elastance, resistance, and mechanical power, as compared with low PEEP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The PROBESE study was registered at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov, identifier: NCT02148692 (submission for registration on May 23, 2014).

Neuromonitoring during general anesthesia in non-neurologic surgery.

Cerebral complications are common in perioperative settings even in non-neurosurgical procedures. These include postoperative cognitive dysfunction or delirium as well as cerebrovascular accidents. During surgery, it is essential to ensure an adequate degree of sedation and analgesia, and at the same time, to provide hemodynamic and respiratory stability in order to minimize neurological complications. In this context, the role of neuromonitoring in the operating room is gaining interest, even in the non-neurolosurgical population. The use of multimodal neuromonitoring can potentially reduce the occurrence of adverse effects during and after surgery, and optimize the administration of anesthetic drugs. In addition to the traditional focus on monitoring hemodynamic and respiratory systems during general anesthesia, the ability to constantly monitor the activity and maintenance of brain homeostasis, creating evidence-based protocols, should also become part of the standard of care: in this challenge, neuromonitoring comes to our aid. In this review, we aim to describe the role of the main types of noninvasive neuromonitoring such as those based on electroencephalography (EEG) waves (EEG, Entropy module, Bispectral Index, Narcotrend Monitor), near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS) based on noninvasive measurement of cerebral regional oxygenation, and Transcranial Doppler used in the perioperative settings in non-neurosurgical intervention. We also describe the advantages, disadvantage, and limitation of each monitoring technique.

Effects of higher PEEP and recruitment manoeuvres on mortality in patients with ARDS: a systematic review, meta-analysis, meta-regression and trial sequential analysis of randomized controlled trials.

PURPOSE: In patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), lung recruitment could be maximised with the use of recruitment manoeuvres (RM) or applying a positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) higher than what is necessary to maintain minimal adequate oxygenation. We aimed to determine whether ventilation strategies using higher PEEP and/or RMs could decrease mortality in patients with ARDS. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL from 1996 to December 2019, included randomized controlled trials comparing ventilation with higher PEEP and/or RMs to strategies with lower PEEP and no RMs in patients with ARDS. We computed pooled estimates with a DerSimonian-Laird mixed-effects model, assessing mortality and incidence of barotrauma, population characteristics, physiologic variables and ventilator settings. We performed a trial sequential analysis (TSA) and a meta-regression. RESULTS: Excluding two studies that used tidal volume (VT) reduction as co-intervention, we included 3870 patients from 10 trials using higher PEEP alone (n = 3), combined with RMs (n = 6) or RMs alone (n = 1). We did not observe differences in mortality (relative risk, RR 0.96, 95% confidence interval, CI [0.84-1.09], p = 0.50) nor in incidence of barotrauma (RR 1.22, 95% CI [0.93-1.61], p = 0.16). In the meta-regression, the PEEP difference between intervention and control group at day 1 and the use of RMs were not associated with increased risk of barotrauma. The TSA reached the required information size for mortality (n = 2928), and the z-line surpassed the futility boundary. CONCLUSIONS: At low VT, the routine use of higher PEEP and/or RMs did not reduce mortality in unselected patients with ARDS. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017082035 .