Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: doi:10.22028/D291-37948
Files for this record:
File Description SizeFormat 
jcm-11-06237-v2.pdf1,18 MBAdobe PDFView/Open
Title: Respiratory Physiology of COVID-19 and Influenza Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome
Author(s): Kronibus, Niklas
Seiler, Frederik
Danziger, Guy
Muellenbach, Ralf M.
Reyher, Christian
Becker, André P. UdsID
Kamphorst, Maren
Rixecker, Torben M.
Metz, Carlos
Bals, Robert UdsID
Lepper, Philipp M. UdsID
Mang, Sebastian
Language: English
In:
Title: Journal of Clinical Medicine
Volume: 11
Issue: 21
Publisher/Platform: MDPI
Year of Publication: 2022
Free key words: coronavirus-disease 2019 (COVID-19)
acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)
mechanical ventilation
influenza A/B
extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)
DDC notations: 610 Medicine and health
Publikation type: Journal Article
Abstract: There is ongoing debate whether lung physiology of COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) differs from ARDS of other origin. Objective: The aim of this study was to analyze and compare how critically ill patients with COVID-19 and Influenza A or B were ventilated in our tertiary care center with or without extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). We ask if acute lung failure due to COVID-19 requires different intensive care management compared to conventional ARDS. Methods: 25 patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS were matched to a cohort of 25 Influenza patients treated in our center from 2011 to 2021. Subgroup analysis addressed whether patients on ECMO received different mechanical ventilation than patients without extracorporeal support. Results: Compared to Influenza-associated ARDS, COVID-19 patients had higher ventilatory system compliance (40.7 mL/mbar [31.8–46.7 mL/mbar] vs. 31.4 mL/mbar [13.7–42.8 mL/mbar], p = 0.198), higher ventilatory ratio (1.57 [1.31–1.84] vs. 0.91 [0.44–1.38], p = 0.006) and higher minute ventilation at the time of intubation (mean minute ventilation 10.7 L/min [7.2–12.2 L/min] for COVID-19 vs. 6.0 L/min [2.5–10.1 L/min] for Influenza, p = 0.013). There were no measurable differences in P/F ratio, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and driving pressures (∆P). Respiratory system compliance deteriorated considerably in COVID-19 patients on ECMO during 2 weeks of mechanical ventilation (Crs, mean decrease over 2 weeks −23.87 mL/mbar ± 32.94 mL/mbar, p = 0.037) but not in ventilated Influenza patients on ECMO and less so in ventilated COVID-19 patients without ECMO. For COVID-19 patients, low driving pressures on ECMO were strongly correlated to a decline in compliance after 2 weeks (Pearson’s R 0.80, p = 0.058). Overall mortality was insignificantly lower for COVID-19 patients compared to Influenza patients (40% vs. 48%, p = 0.31). Outcome was insignificantly worse for patients requiring veno-venous ECMO in both groups (50% mortality for COVID-19 on ECMO vs. 27% without ECMO, p = 0.30/56% vs. 34% mortality for Influenza A/B with and without ECMO, p = 0.31). Conclusion: The pathophysiology of early COVID-19-associated ARDS differs from Influenza-associated acute lung failure by sustained respiratory mechanics during the early phase of ventilation. We question whether intubated COVID-19 patients on ECMO benefit from extremely low driving pressures, as this appears to accelerate derecruitment and consecutive loss of ventilatory system compliance.
DOI of the first publication: 10.3390/jcm11216237
Link to this record: urn:nbn:de:bsz:291--ds-379482
hdl:20.500.11880/34303
http://dx.doi.org/10.22028/D291-37948
ISSN: 2077-0383
Date of registration: 11-Nov-2022
Faculty: M - Medizinische Fakultät
Department: M - Innere Medizin
Professorship: M - Prof. Dr. Robert Bals
Collections:SciDok - Der Wissenschaftsserver der Universität des Saarlandes



This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons