Abstract
Objectives Patients with COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (CARDS) appear to present with at least two distinct phenotypes: severe hypoxemia with relatively well-preserved lung compliance and lung gas volumes (Type 1) and a more conventional ARDS phenotype displaying the typical characteristics of the ‘baby lung’ (Type 2). We aimed to test plausible hypotheses regarding the pathophysiological mechanisms underlying CARDS, and to evaluate the resulting implications for ventilatory management.
Design We adapted a high-fidelity computational simulator, previously validated in several studies of ARDS, to (a) develop quantitative insights into the key pathophysiologic differences between CARDS and conventional ARDS, and (b) assess the impact of different PEEP, FiO2 and tidal volume settings.
Setting Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Systems Medicine Research Network.
Subjects The simulator was calibrated to represent CARDS patients with both normal and elevated body mass indices undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation.
Measurements and Main Results An ARDS model implementing disruption of hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction and vasodilation leading to hyperperfusion of collapsed lung regions failed to replicate clinical data on Type 1 CARDS patients. Adding mechanisms to reflect disruption of alveolar gas-exchange due to the effects of pneumonitis, and heightened vascular resistance due to the emergence of microthrombi, produced levels of V/Q mismatch and hypoxemia consistent with data from Type 1 CARDS patients, while preserving close to normal lung compliance and gas volumes. Atypical responses to PEEP increments between 5 and 15 cmH2O were observed for this Type 1 CARDS model across a range of measures: increasing PEEP resulted in reduced lung compliance and no improvement in oxygenation, while Mechanical Power, Driving Pressure and Plateau Pressure all increased. FiO2 settings based on ARDSnet protocols at different PEEP levels were insufficient to achieve adequate oxygenation. Incrementing tidal volumes from 5 to 10 ml/kg produced similar increases in multiple indicators of ventilator induced lung injury in the Type 1 CARDS model to those seen in a conventional ARDS model.
Conclusions Our model suggests that use of standard PEEP/ FiO2 tables, higher PEEP strategies, and higher tidal volumes, may all be potentially deleterious in Type 1 CARDS patients, and that a highly personalized approach to treatment is advisable.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
UK Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (grants EP/P023444/1 and EP/V014455/1)
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
IRB and/or ethics committee approvals was not needed.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data referred to in the manuscript is freely available. Please email the corresponding author Professor Declan G. Bates (D.Bates@warwick.ac.uk) for details.
