Adherence to protective mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: Comparison between two prospective cohorts / Adhesión a la ventilación mecánica protectora en el síndrome de dificultad respiratoria aguda asociado a COVID-19 o asociado a otras etiologias: comparación entre dos cohortes prospectivas

Objective To compare adherence to protective mechanical ventilation (MV) parametersin patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by COVID-19 with patients with ARDS from other etiologies. Design Multiple prospective cohort study. Setting: Two Brazilian cohorts of ARDS patients were evaluated. One with COVID-19 patients admitted to two Brazilian intensive care units (ICUs) in 2020 and 2021 (C-ARDS, n=282), the other with ARDS-patients from other etiologies admitted to 37 Brazilian ICUs in 2016 (NC-ARDS, n=120). Patients: ARDS patients under MV. Interventions: None. Main variables of interest: Adherence to protective MV (tidal volume ≤8mL/kg PBW; plateau pressure ≤30cmH2O; and driving pressure ≤15cmH2O), adherence to each individual component of the protective MV, and the association between protective MV and mortality. Results Adherence to protective MV was higher in C-ARDS than in NC-ARDS patients (65.8% vs. 50.0%, p=0.005), mainly due to a higher adherence to driving pressure ≤15cmH2O (75.0% vs. 62.4%, p=0.02). Multivariable logistic regression showed that the C-ARDS cohort was independently associated with adherence to protective MV. Among the components of the protective MV, only limiting driving pressure was independently associated with lower ICU mortality. Conclusions Higher adherence to protective MV in patients with C-ARDS was secondary to higher adherence to limiting driving pressure. Additionally, lower driving pressure was independently associated with lower ICU mortality, which suggests that limiting exposure to driving pressure may improve survival in these patients (AU)

Objetivo Comparar la adhesión a la ventilación mecánica (VM) protectora en pacientes con síndrome de dificultad respiratoria aguda (SDRA) causada por COVID-19 con pacientes con SDRA de otras etiologías. Diseño Estudio de cohorte prospectivo. Âmbito: Se evaluaron dos cohortes de pacientes con SDRA: 1.pacientes con COVID-19 ingresados en dos unidades de cuidados intensivos (UCI) brasileñas en 2020 y 2021 (C-ARDS, n=282); 2.pacientes con SDRA de otras etiologías ingresados en 37 UCI brasileñas en 2016 (NC-ARDS, n=120). Pacientes: Pacientes con SDRA bajo VM invasiva. Intervenciones: No. Variables de interés principals: Adhesión a la VM protectora (volumen tidal ≤8mL/kg; presión de meseta ≤30cmH2O; y presión de distensión [PD] ≤15cmH2O), adhesión a cada componente individual de la VM protectora, y la asociación entre la VM protectora y la mortalidad. Resultados La adhesión a la VM protectora fue mayor en la cohorte C-ARDS que en la NC-ARDS (65,8% vs. 50,0%, p=0,005), principalmente debido a mayor adhesión a la PD≤15cmH2O (75,0% vs. 62,4%, p=0,02). La regresión logística multivariable mostró que la cohorte C-ARDS se asoció de forma independiente con la adhesión a la VM protectora. Entre los componentes de la VM protectora, sólo la limitación de la PD se asoció de forma independiente con menor mortalidad en la UCI. Conclusión La mayor adhesión a la VM protectora en los pacientes con C-ARDS fue secundaria a la mayor adhesión a limitación da PD. Además, una menor PD se asoció de forma independiente a menor mortalidad en la UCI, lo que sugiere que limitar la exposición a altas PD puede mejorar la supervivencia en estos pacientes (AU)

Adherence to protective mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: Comparison between two prospective cohorts.

OBJECTIVE: To compare adherence to protective mechanical ventilation (MV) parameters in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by COVID-19 with patients with ARDS from other etiologies. DESIGN: Multiple prospective cohort study. SETTING: Two Brazilian cohorts of ARDS patients were evaluated. One with COVID-19 patients admitted to two Brazilian intensive care units (ICUs) in 2020 and 2021 (C-ARDS, n=282), the other with ARDS-patients from other etiologies admitted to 37 Brazilian ICUs in 2016 (NC-ARDS, n=120). PATIENTS: ARDS patients under MV. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN VARIABLES OF INTEREST: Adherence to protective MV (tidal volume ≤8mL/kg PBW; plateau pressure ≤30cmH2O; and driving pressure ≤15cmH2O), adherence to each individual component of the protective MV, and the association between protective MV and mortality. RESULTS: Adherence to protective MV was higher in C-ARDS than in NC-ARDS patients (65.8% vs. 50.0%, p=0.005), mainly due to a higher adherence to driving pressure ≤15cmH2O (75.0% vs. 62.4%, p=0.02). Multivariable logistic regression showed that the C-ARDS cohort was independently associated with adherence to protective MV. Among the components of the protective MV, only limiting driving pressure was independently associated with lower ICU mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Higher adherence to protective MV in patients with C-ARDS was secondary to higher adherence to limiting driving pressure. Additionally, lower driving pressure was independently associated with lower ICU mortality, which suggests that limiting exposure to driving pressure may improve survival in these patients.