Critical Care (Dec 2020)

Electrical impedance tomography to titrate positive end-expiratory pressure in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome

  • François Perier,
  • Samuel Tuffet,
  • Tommaso Maraffi,
  • Glasiele Alcala,
  • Marcus Victor,
  • Anne-Fleur Haudebourg,
  • Keyvan Razazi,
  • Nicolas De Prost,
  • Marcelo Amato,
  • Guillaume Carteaux,
  • Armand Mekontso Dessap

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-020-03414-3
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 24, no. 1
pp. 1 – 9

Abstract

Read online

Abstract Rationale Patients with coronavirus disease-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (C-ARDS) could have a specific physiological phenotype as compared with those affected by ARDS from other causes (NC-ARDS). Objectives To describe the effect of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) on respiratory mechanics in C-ARDS patients in supine and prone position, and as compared to NC-ARDS. The primary endpoint was the best PEEP defined as the smallest sum of hyperdistension and collapse. Methods Seventeen patients with moderate-to-severe C-ARDS were monitored by electrical impedance tomography (EIT) and evaluated during PEEP titration in supine (n = 17) and prone (n = 14) position and compared with 13 NC-ARDS patients investigated by EIT in our department before the COVID-19 pandemic. Results As compared with NC-ARDS, C-ARDS exhibited a higher median best PEEP (defined using EIT as the smallest sum of hyperdistension and collapse, 12 [9, 12] vs. 9 [6, 9] cmH2O, p < 0.01), more collapse at low PEEP, and less hyperdistension at high PEEP. The median value of the best PEEP was similar in C-ARDS in supine and prone position: 12 [9, 12] vs. 12 [10, 15] cmH2O, p = 0.59. The response to PEEP was also similar in C-ARDS patients with higher vs. lower respiratory system compliance. Conclusion An intermediate PEEP level seems appropriate in half of our C-ARDS patients. There is no solid evidence that compliance at low PEEP could predict the response to PEEP.

Keywords