Unusually Rapid Development of Pulmonary Hypertension and Right Ventricular Failure after COVID-19 Pneumonia

COVID-19 is a novel viral disease caused by SARS-CoV-2. The mid- and long-term outcomes have not yet been determined. COVID-19 infection is increasingly being associated with systemic and multi-organ involvement, encompassing cytokine release syndrome and thromboembolic, vascular and cardiac events. The patient described experienced unusually rapid development of pulmonary hypertension (PH) and right ventricular failure after recent severe COVID-19 pneumonia with cytokine release syndrome, which initially was successfully treated with methylprednisolone and tocilizumab. The development of pulmonary hypertension and right ventricular failure – in the absence of emboli on multiple CT angiograms – was most likely caused by progressive pulmonary parenchymal abnormalities combined with microvascular damage of the pulmonary arteries (group III and IV pulmonary hypertension, respectively). To the best of our knowledge, these complications have not previously been described and therefore awareness of PH as a complication of COVID-19 is warranted

Pulmonary levels of biomarkers for inflammation and lung injury in protective versus conventional one-lung ventilation for oesophagectomy: A randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND: It is uncertain whether protective ventilation reduces ventilation-induced pulmonary inflammation and injury during one-lung ventilation. OBJECTIVE: To compare intra-operative protective ventilation with conventional during oesophagectomy with respect to pulmonary levels of biomarkers for inflammation and lung injury. DESIGN: Randomised clinical trial. SETTING: Tertiary centre for oesophageal diseases. PATIENTS: Twenty-nine patients scheduled for one-lung ventilation during oesophagectomy. INTERVENTIONS: Low tidal volume (VT) of 6 ml kg predicted body weight (pbw) during two-lung ventilation and 3 ml kgpbw during one-lung ventilation with 5 cmH2O positive end expired pressure versus intermediate VT of 10 ml kgpbw during two-lung ventilation and 5 ml kgpbw body weight during one-lung ventilation with no positive end-expiratory pressure. OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the change in bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) levels of preselected biomarkers for inflammation (TNF-α, IL-6 and IL-8) and lung injury (soluble Receptor for Advanced Glycation End-products, surfactant protein-D, Clara Cell protein 16 and Krebs von den Lungen 6), from start to end of ventilation. RESULTS: Median [IQR] VT in the protective ventilation group (n = 13) was 6.0 [5.7 to 7.8] and 3.1 [3.0 to 3.6] ml kgpbw during two and one-lung ventilation; VT in the conventional ventilation group (n = 16) was 9.8 [7.0 to 10.1] and 5.2 [5.0 to 5.5] ml kgpbw during two and one-lung ventilation. BAL levels of biomarkers for inflammation increased from start to end of ventilation in both groups; levels of soluble Receptor for Advanced Glycation End-products, Clara Cell protein 16 and Krebs von den Lungen 6 did not change, while levels of surfactant protein-D decreased. Changes in BAL biomarkers levels were not significantly different between the two ventilation strategies. CONCLUSION: Intra-operative protective ventilation compared with conventional ventilation does not affect changes in pulmonary levels of biomarkers for inflammation and lung injury in patients undergoing one-lung ventilation for oesophagectomy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The 'Low versus Conventional tidal volumes during one-lung ventilation for minimally invasive oesophagectomy trial' (LoCo) was registered at the Netherlands Trial Register (study identifier NTR 4391)

Ventilation management and clinical outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 (PRoVENT-COVID): a national, multicentre, observational cohort study

Background: Little is known about the practice of ventilation management in patients with COVID-19. We aimed to describe the practice of ventilation management and to establish outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19 in a single country during the first month of the outbreak. Methods: PRoVENT-COVID is a national, multicentre, retrospective observational study done at 18 intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands. Consecutive patients aged at least 18 years were eligible for participation if they had received invasive ventilation for COVID-19 at a participating ICU during the first month of the national outbreak in the Netherlands. The primary outcome was a combination of ventilator variables and parameters over the first 4 calendar days of ventilation: tidal volume, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), respiratory system compliance, and driving pressure. Secondary outcomes included the use of adjunctive treatments for refractory hypoxaemia and ICU complications. Patient-centred outcomes were ventilator-free days at day 28, duration of ventilation, duration of ICU and hospital stay, and mortality. PRoVENT-COVID is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04346342). Findings: Between March 1 and April 1, 2020, 553 patients were included in the study. Median tidal volume was 6·3 mL/kg predicted bodyweight (IQR 5·7–7·1), PEEP was 14·0 cm H2O (IQR 11·0–15·0), and driving pressure was 14·0 cm H2O (11·2–16·0). Median respiratory system compliance was 31·9 mL/cm H2O (26·0–39·9). Of the adjunctive treatments for refractory hypoxaemia, prone positioning was most often used in the first 4 days of ventilation (283 [53%] of 530 patients). The median number of ventilator-free days at day 28 was 0 (IQR 0–15); 186 (35%) of 530 patients had died by day 28. Predictors of 28-day mortality were gender, age, tidal volume, respiratory system compliance, arterial pH, and heart rate on the first day of invasive ventilation. Interpretation: In patients with COVID-19 who were invasively ventilated during the first month of the outbreak in the Netherlands, lung-protective ventilation with low tidal volume and low driving pressure was broadly applied and prone positioning was often used. The applied PEEP varied widely, despite an invariably low respiratory system compliance. The findings of this national study provide a basis for new hypotheses and sample size calculations for future trials of invasive ventilation for COVID-19. These data could also help in the interpretation of findings from other studies of ventilation practice and outcomes in invasively ventilated patients with COVID-19. Funding: Amsterdam University Medical Centers, location Academic Medical Center