Search

Background: During general anesthesia, mechanical ventilation can cause pulmonary damage through mechanism of ventilator-induced lung injury, which is a major cause of post-operative pulmonary complications, which varies between 5 and 33% and increases the 30-day mortality of the surgical patient significantly., Objective: The aim of this review is to analyze different variables which played a key role in the safe application of mechanical ventilation in the operating room and emergency setting., Methods: Also, we wanted to analyze different types of the population that underwent intraoperative mechanical ventilation like obese patients, pediatric and adult population and different strategies such as one lung ventilation and ventilation in trendelemburg position. The peer-reviewed articles analyzed were selected according to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) from Pubmed/Medline, Ovid/Wiley and Cochrane Library, combining key terms such as: "pulmonary post-operative complications", "protective ventilation", "alveolar recruitment maneuvers", "respiratory compliance", "intraoperative paediatric ventilation", "best peep", "types of ventilation". Among the 230 papers identified, 150 articles were selected, after title - abstract examination and removing the duplicates, resulting in 94 articles related to mechanical ventilation in operating room and emergency setting that were analyzed., Results: Careful preoperative patient's evaluation and protective ventilation (i.e., use of low tidal volumes, adequate PEEP and alveolar recruitment maneuvers) has been shown to be effective not only in limiting alveolar de-recruitment, alveolar overdistension and lung damage, but also in reducing the onset of Pulmonary Post-operative Complications (PPCs)., Conclusion: Mechanical ventilation is like "Janus Bi-front" because it is essential for surgical procedures, for the care of critical care patients and in life-threatening conditions, but it can be harmful to the patient if continued for a long time and where an excessive dose of oxygen is administered into the lungs. Low tidal volume is associated with a minor rate of PPCs and other complications and every complication can increase the length of Stay, adding cost to NHS between 1580 € and 1650 € per day in Europe and currently the prevention of PPCS is the only weapon that we possess., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)

The use of non-invasive respiratory strategies (NIRS) is crucial to improve oxygenation in COVID-19 patients with hypoxemia refractory to conventional oxygen therapy. However, the absence of respiratory symptoms may delay the start of NIRS. The aim of this study was to determine whether a simple bedside test such as single-breath counting test (SBCT) can predict the need for NIRS in the 24 h following the access to Emergency Department (ED). We performed a prospective observational study on 120 patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. ROC curves were used to analyze factors which might predict NIRS requirement. We found that 36% of patients had normal respiratory rate and did not experience dyspnea at rest. 65% of study population required NIRS in the 24 h following the access to ED. NIRS-requiring group presented lower PaO 2 /FiO 2 (235.09 vs. 299.02), SpO 2 /FiO 2 ratio (357.83 vs. 431.07), PaCO 2 (35.12 vs. 40.08), and SBCT (24.46 vs. 30.36) and showed higher incidence of dyspnea at rest (57.7% vs. 28.6%). Furthermore, SBCT predicted NIRS requirement even in the subgroup of patients without respiratory symptoms (AUC = 0.882, cut-off = 30). SBCT might be a valuable tool for bedside assessment of respiratory function in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia and might be considered as an early clinical sign of impending respiratory deterioration.

Background: Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) impairment is often reported among COVID-19 ICU survivors, and little is known about their long-term outcomes. We evaluated the HRQoL trajectories between 3 months and 1 year after ICU discharge, the factors influencing these trajectories and the presence of clusters of HRQoL profiles in a population of COVID-19 patients who underwent invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). Moreover, pathophysiological correlations of residual dyspnea were tested., Methods: We followed up 178 survivors from 16 Italian ICUs up to one year after ICU discharge. HRQoL was investigated through the 15D instrument. Available pulmonary function tests (PFTs) and chest CT scans at 1 year were also collected. A linear mixed-effects model was adopted to identify factors associated with different HRQoL trajectories and a two-step cluster analysis was performed to identify HRQoL clusters., Results: We found that HRQoL increased during the study period, especially for the significant increase of the physical dimensions, while the mental dimensions and dyspnea remained substantially unchanged. Four main 15D profiles were identified: full recovery (47.2%), bad recovery (5.1%) and two partial recovery clusters with mostly physical (9.6%) or mental (38.2%) dimensions affected. Gender, duration of IMV and number of comorbidities significantly influenced HRQoL trajectories. Persistent dyspnea was reported in 58.4% of patients, and weakly, but significantly, correlated with both DLCO and length of IMV., Conclusions: HRQoL impairment is frequent 1 year after ICU discharge, and the lowest recovery is found in the mental dimensions. Persistent dyspnea is often reported and weakly correlated with PFTs alterations., Trial Registration: NCT04411459., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The onset of the coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic in Italy induced a dramatic increase in the need for intensive care unit (ICU) beds for a large proportion of patients affected by COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The aim of the present study was to describe the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) at 90 days after ICU discharge in a cohort of COVID-19 patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation and to compare it with an age and sex-matched sample from the general Italian and Finnish populations. Moreover, the possible associations between clinical, demographic, social factors, and HRQoL were investigated., Methods: COVID-19 ARDS survivors from 16 participating ICUs were followed up until 90 days after ICU discharge and the HRQoL was evaluated with the 15D instrument. A parallel cohort of age and sex-matched Italian population from the same geographic areas was interviewed and a third group of matched Finnish population was extracted from the Finnish 2011 National Health survey. A linear regression analysis was performed to evaluate potential associations between the evaluated factors and HRQoL., Results: 205 patients answered to the questionnaire. HRQoL of the COVID-19 ARDS patients was significantly lower than the matched populations in both physical and mental dimensions. Age, sex, number of comorbidities, ARDS class, duration of invasive mechanical ventilation, and occupational status were found to be significant determinants of the 90 days HRQoL. Clinical severity at ICU admission was poorly correlated to HRQoL., Conclusion: COVID-19-related ARDS survivors at 90 days after ICU discharge present a significant reduction both on physical and psychological dimensions of HRQoL measured with the 15D instrument., Trial Registration: NCT04411459., (© 2021. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Background: Prone positioning (PP) has been used to improve oxygenation in patients affected by the SARS-CoV-2 disease (COVID-19). Several mechanisms, including lung recruitment and better lung ventilation/perfusion matching, make a relevant rational for using PP. However, not all patients maintain the oxygenation improvement after returning to supine position. Nevertheless, no evidence exists that a sustained oxygenation response after PP is associated to outcome in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. We analyzed data from 191 patients affected by COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome undergoing PP for clinical reasons. Clinical history, severity scores and respiratory mechanics were analyzed. Patients were classified as responders (≥ median PaO 2 /FiO 2 variation) or non-responders (< median PaO 2 /FiO 2 variation) based on the PaO 2 /FiO 2 percentage change between pre-proning and 1 to 3 h after re-supination in the first prone positioning session. Differences among the groups in physiological variables, complication rates and outcome were evaluated. A competing risk regression analysis was conducted to evaluate if PaO 2 /FiO 2 response after the first pronation cycle was associated to liberation from mechanical ventilation., Results: The median PaO 2 /FiO 2 variation after the first PP cycle was 49 [19-100%] and no differences were found in demographics, comorbidities, ventilatory treatment and PaO 2 /FiO 2 before PP between responders (96/191) and non-responders (95/191). Despite no differences in ICU length of stay, non-responders had a higher rate of tracheostomy (70.5% vs 47.9, P = 0.008) and mortality (53.7% vs 33.3%, P = 0.006), as compared to responders. Moreover, oxygenation response after the first PP was independently associated to liberation from mechanical ventilation at 28 days and was increasingly higher being higher the oxygenation response to PP., Conclusions: Sustained oxygenation improvement after first PP session is independently associated to improved survival and reduced duration of mechanical ventilation in critically ill COVID-19 patients.

Background: A large proportion of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) develop severe respiratory failure requiring admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) and about 80% of them need mechanical ventilation (MV). These patients show great complexity due to multiple organ involvement and a dynamic evolution over time; moreover, few information is available about the risk factors that may contribute to increase the time course of mechanical ventilation.The primary objective of this study is to investigate the risk factors associated with the inability to liberate COVID-19 patients from mechanical ventilation. Due to the complex evolution of the disease, we analyzed both pulmonary variables and occurrence of non-pulmonary complications during mechanical ventilation. The secondary objective of this study was the evaluation of risk factors for ICU mortality., Methods: This multicenter prospective observational study enrolled 391 patients from fifteen COVID-19 dedicated Italian ICUs which underwent invasive mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 pneumonia. Clinical and laboratory data, ventilator parameters, occurrence of organ dysfunction, and outcome were recorded. The primary outcome measure was 28 days ventilator-free days and the liberation from MV at 28 days was studied by performing a competing risks regression model on data, according to the method of Fine and Gray; the event death was considered as a competing risk., Results: Liberation from mechanical ventilation was achieved in 53.2% of the patients (208/391). Competing risks analysis, considering death as a competing event, demonstrated a decreased sub-hazard ratio for liberation from mechanical ventilation (MV) with increasing age and SOFA score at ICU admission, low values of PaO 2 /FiO 2 ratio during the first 5 days of MV, respiratory system compliance (C RS ) lower than 40 mL/cmH 2 O during the first 5 days of MV, need for renal replacement therapy (RRT), late-onset ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP), and cardiovascular complications.ICU mortality during the observation period was 36.1% (141/391). Similar results were obtained by the multivariate logistic regression analysis using mortality as a dependent variable., Conclusions: Age, SOFA score at ICU admission, C RS , PaO 2 /FiO 2 , renal and cardiovascular complications, and late-onset VAP were all independent risk factors for prolonged mechanical ventilation in patients with COVID-19., Trial Registration: NCT04411459., Competing Interests: Competing interestsThe authors have no conflict of interest to declare., (© The Author(s) 2020.)