Search

Abstract Background Nitric oxide (NO) is a strong vasodilator, selectively directed on pulmonary circulation through inhaled administration. In adult intensive care units (ICU), it is mainly used for refractory hypoxemia in mechanically ventilated patients. Several medical delivery devices have been developed to deliver inhaled nitric oxide (iNO). The main purpose of those devices is to guarantee an accurate inspiratory NO concentration, whatever the ventilator used, with NO2 concentrations lower than 0.3 ppm. We hypothesized that the performances of the different available iNO delivery systems could depend on their working principle and could be influenced by the ventilator settings. The objective of this study was to assess the accuracy of seven different iNO-devices combined with different ICU ventilators’ flow-by to reach inspiratory NO concentration targets and to evaluate their potential risk of toxicity. Methods We tested seven iNO-devices on a test-lung connected to distinct ICU ventilators offering four different levels of flow-by. We measured the flow in the inspiratory limb of the patient circuit and the airway pressure. The nitric oxide/nitrogen (NO/N2) flow was measured on the administration line of the iNO-devices. NO and NO2 concentrations were measured in the test-lung using an electrochemical analyzer. Results We identified three iNO-device generations based on the way they deliver NO flow: “Continuous”, “Sequential to inspiratory phase” (I-Sequential) and “Proportional to inspiratory and expiratory ventilator flow” (Proportional). Median accuracy of iNO concentration measured in the test lung was 2% (interquartile range, IQR -19; 36), -23% (IQR -29; -17) and 0% (IQR -2; 0) with Continuous, I-Sequential and Proportional devices, respectively. Increased ventilator flow-by resulted in decreased iNO concentration in the test-lung with Continuous and I-Sequential devices, but not with Proportional ones. NO2 formation measured to assess potential risks of toxicity never exceeded the predefined safety target of 0.5 ppm. However, NO2 concentrations higher than or equal to 0.3 ppm, a concentration that can cause bronchoconstriction, were observed in 19% of the different configurations. Conclusion We identified three different generations of iNO-devices, based on their gas administration modalities, that were associated with highly variable iNO concentrations’ accuracy. Ventilator’s flow by significantly impacted iNO concentration. Only the Proportional devices permitted to accurately deliver iNO whatever the conditions and the ventilators tested.

Abstract Background Respiratory mechanics is a key element to monitor mechanically ventilated patients and guide ventilator settings. Besides the usual basic assessments, some more complex explorations may allow to better characterize patients’ respiratory mechanics and individualize ventilation strategies. These advanced respiratory mechanics assessments including esophageal pressure measurements and complete airway closure detection may be particularly relevant in critically ill obese patients. This study aimed to comprehensively assess respiratory mechanics in obese and non-obese ICU patients with or without ARDS and evaluate the contribution of advanced respiratory mechanics assessments compared to basic assessments in these patients. Methods All intubated patients admitted in two ICUs for any cause were prospectively included. Gas exchange and respiratory mechanics including esophageal pressure and end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) measurements and low-flow insufflation to detect complete airway closure were assessed in standardized conditions (tidal volume of 6 mL kg−1 predicted body weight (PBW), positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) of 5 cmH2O) within 24 h after intubation. Results Among the 149 analyzed patients, 52 (34.9%) were obese and 90 (60.4%) had ARDS (65.4% and 57.8% of obese and non-obese patients, respectively, p = 0.385). A complete airway closure was found in 23.5% of the patients. It was more frequent in obese than in non-obese patients (40.4% vs 14.4%, p

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia can lead to acute hypoxemic respiratory failure. When mechanical ventilation is needed, almost all patients with COVID-19 pneumonia meet the criteria for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The question of the specificities of COVID-19-associated ARDS compared to other causes of ARDS is of utmost importance, as it may justify changes in ventilatory strategies. This review aims to describe the pathophysiology of COVID-19-associated ARDS and discusses whether specific ventilatory strategies are required in these patients.

Abstract Background A large proportion of patients with a SARS-Cov-2-associated respiratory failure develop an acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). It has been recently suggested that SARS-Cov-2-associated ARDS may differ from usual non-SARS-Cov-2-associated ARDS by higher respiratory system compliance (C RS), lower potential for recruitment with positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) contrasting with severe shunt fraction. The purpose of the study was to systematically assess respiratory mechanics and recruitability in SARS-Cov-2-associated ARDS. Methods Gas exchanges, C RS and hemodynamics were assessed at 2 levels of PEEP (15 cmH2O and 5 cmH2O) within 36 h (day1) and from 4 to 6 days (day 5) after intubation. The recruited volume was computed as the difference between the volume expired from PEEP 15 to 5 cmH2O and the volume predicted by compliance at PEEP 5 cmH2O (or above airway opening pressure). The recruitment-to-inflation (R/I) ratio (i.e. the ratio between the recruited lung compliance and C RS at PEEP 5 cmH2O) was used to assess lung recruitability. A R/I ratio value higher than or equal to 0.5 was used to define highly recruitable patients. Results The R/I ratio was calculated in 25 of the 26 enrolled patients at day 1 and in 15 patients at day 5. At day 1, 16 (64%) were considered as highly recruitable (R/I ratio median [interquartile range] 0.7 [0.55–0.94]) and 9 (36%) were considered as poorly recruitable (R/I ratio 0.41 [0.31–0.48]). The PaO2/FiO2 ratio at PEEP 15 cmH2O was higher compared to PEEP 5 cmH2O only in highly recruitable patients (173 [139–236] vs 135 [89–167] mmHg; p