key: cord-293740-4c3yemi3
authors: Ferrando, Carlos; Suarez-Sipmann, Fernando; Mellado-Artigas, Ricard; Hernández, María; Gea, Alfredo; Arruti, Egoitz; Aldecoa, César; Martínez-Pallí, Graciela; Martínez-González, Miguel A.; Slutsky, Arthur S.; Villar, Jesús
title: Clinical features, ventilatory management, and outcome of ARDS caused by COVID-19 are similar to other causes of ARDS
date: 2020-07-29
journal: Intensive Care Med
DOI: 10.1007/s00134-020-06192-2
sha: 
doc_id: 293740
cord_uid: 4c3yemi3

PURPOSE: The main characteristics of mechanically ventilated ARDS patients affected with COVID-19, and the adherence to lung-protective ventilation strategies are not well known. We describe characteristics and outcomes of confirmed ARDS in COVID-19 patients managed with invasive mechanical ventilation (MV). METHODS: This is a multicenter, prospective, observational study in consecutive, mechanically ventilated patients with ARDS (as defined by the Berlin criteria) affected with with COVID-19 (confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection in nasal or pharyngeal swab specimens), admitted to a network of 36 Spanish and Andorran intensive care units (ICUs) between March 12 and June 1, 2020. We examined the clinical features, ventilatory management, and clinical outcomes of COVID-19 ARDS patients, and compared some results with other relevant studies in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients. RESULTS: A total of 742 patients were analysed with complete 28-day outcome data: 128 (17.1%) with mild, 331 (44.6%) with moderate, and 283 (38.1%) with severe ARDS. At baseline, defined as the first day on invasive MV, median (IQR) values were: tidal volume 6.9 (6.3–7.8) ml/kg predicted body weight, positive end-expiratory pressure 12 (11–14) cmH(2)O. Values of respiratory system compliance 35 (27–45) ml/cmH(2)O, plateau pressure 25 (22–29) cmH(2)O, and driving pressure 12 (10–16) cmH(2)O were similar cto values from non-COVID-19 ARDS observed in other studies. Recruitment maneuvers, prone position and neuromuscular blocking agents were used in 79%, 76% and 72% of patients, respectively. The risk of 28-day mortality was lower in mild ARDS [hazard ratio (RR) 0.56 (95% CI 0.33–0.93), p = 0.026] and moderate ARDS [hazard ratio (RR) 0.69 (95% CI 0.47–0.97), p = 0.035] when compared to severe ARDS. The 28-day mortality was similar to other observational studies in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients. CONCLUSIONS: In this large series, COVID-19 ARDS patients have features similar to other causes of ARDS, compliance with lung-protective ventilation was high, and the risk of 28-day mortality increased with the degree of ARDS severity. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-020-06192-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

In late December 2019, the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention (Chinese CDC) reported a series of cases of unknown pneumonia which was subsequently termed Coronavirus disease 2019 , caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) [1] . The health, social, and economic impact of this disease is unprecedented in our life-time. The COVID-19 pandemic has collapsed health care systems and led to an overwhelming pressure on Intensive Care Units (ICUs), since many patients developed profound hypoxemia and extensive pulmonary infiltrates requiring intubation and ventilatory support [2] .

Recent publications from China and Italy have described the epidemiology, clinical characteristics, and prognostic factors of patients who developed acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by COVID-19 [3] [4] [5] . A number of editorials and anecdotal points of view have suggested that COVID-19 ARDS has an atypical behavior, since a number of patients with profound hypoxemia had normal or close to normal respiratory system compliance (Crs) [6] [7] [8] . However, data confirming this assumption are scarce, and the view that severe COVID-19 causes an "atypical" ARDS has generated debate. Consequently, there is controversy on the most appropriate oxygenation and ventilation strategies without increasing ventilation-induced lung injury or multiorgan damage.

It has been long known that patients with ARDS have markedly varied clinical presentations, and the Berlin definition did not include a threshold value for respiratory compliance as a diagnostic criterion for ARDS, because it did not add to predictive validity [9] , and it can be difficult to measure accurately in non-passive patients.

The clinical features of patients with SARS-CoV-2-induced ARDS, and the ventilatory management, and patient outcomes have not been well described [4] . The main objective of this large observational study was to describe the physiologic characteristics over time, the ventilatory management, and outcomes in a large cohort of confirmed ARDS COVID-19 patients. A secondary objective was to compare respiratory parameters and outcomes of ARDS COVID-19 patients with ARDS of other causes, where possible.

This is a prospective, multicenter, observational, cohort study that enrolled patients with COVID-19 ARDS admitted into 36 hospitals from Spain and Andorra (participating centers are listed in the Supplementary file). During the pandemic, there were no specific hospitals that were designated as COVID-19 centers, and thus the distribution of patients among centers was similar to that observed pre-COVID-19. The study was approved by the referral Ethics Committee of Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain (code number: HBC/2020/0399). According to Spanish legislation, this approval is valid for all participating centers. The informed consent was waived, except in three centers where the institutional review boards requested oral informed consent from patient's relatives. This study followed the "Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE)" statement guidelines for observational cohort studies [10] .

Data from patients' electronic medical records were reviewed and collected by physicians trained in critical care, according to a previously standardized protocol. Each investigator had a personal username and password and entered data into a specifically pre-designed online data acquisition system (CoVid19.ubikare.io). Patient confidentiality was protected by assigning a de-identified patient code. All consecutive COVID-19 patients included in the dataset from March 12 to June 1, 2020 were enrolled if they fulfilled the following criteria: ≥ 18 years old, intubated and mechanically ventilated, confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection from a respiratory tract sample using PCR-based tests, and had acute onset of ARDS, as defined by the Berlin criteria [9] , which includes a new or worsening respiratory symptoms due to COVID infection, bilateral pulmonary infiltrates on chest imaging (X-ray or CT scan), absence of left atrial hypertension or no clinical signs of left heart failure, and hypoxemia, as defined by a ratio between partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood (PaO 2 ) and fraction of inspired oxygen (PaO 2 /FiO 2 ) ≤ 300 mmHg on positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) ≥ 5 cmH 2 O, regardless of FiO 2 . Exclusion criteria were patients with non-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection according to WHO guidance [11] , patients with no data at baseline, patients with no information on ventilatory parameters, or non-intubated patients.

Recorded data included demographics [age, gender, body mass index (BMI), comorbidities], vital signs

The COVID-19 pandemic has collapsed health care systems and led to a critically overwhelming pressure on Intensive Care Units (ICUs), since many patients developed profound hypoxemia and extensive pulmonary infiltrates requiring intubation and ventilatory support. COVID-19 patients with ARDS predominantly presented a typical moderate-to-severe ARDS. Ventilatory management, and 28-day outcome did not differ from other causes of ARDS.

[temperature, mean arterial pressure (MAP), heart rate], laboratory parameters (blood test, coagulation, biochemical), ventilatory parameters [tidal volume (VT), inspiratory oxygen fraction (FiO 2 ), respiratory rate (RR), PEEP, plateau pressure (Pplat), driving pressure (DP), respiratory system compliance (Crs)], the use of adjunctive therapies [recruitment maneuvers (RM), prone position, neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA), extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO)], pharmacological treatments, disease chronology [time from onset of symptoms and from hospital admission to initiation of mechanical ventilation (MV), ventilator-free days (VFDs) during the first 30 days, ICU length of stay (LOS)]. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) and APACHE II scores, patients discharged from ICU, patients who had died or still being treated in the ICU on June 1, 2020 were also reported.

A full data set was obtained on the first day on invasive MV which was defined as baseline. We also collected the "worst" values during the period of invasive respiratory support (maximum or minimum, depending on the parameter). Site investigators collected what they considered to be the most representative data of each day from admission to ICU discharge, alive or dead. Prior to data analysis, two independent investigators and a statistician screened the database for errors against standardized ranges and contacted local investigators with any queries. Validated or corrected data were then entered into the database.

For the main objective of the study, two descriptive analyses including clinical characteristics, mechanical ventilation data, respiratory parameters, and adjunctive measures were performed. First, we describe patients stratified as mild, moderate, and severe ARDS based on the Berlin criteria. Second, we describe patients stratified as having normal Crs (≥ 50 ml/cmH 2 O) or low Crs (< 50 ml/cmH 2 O) according to baseline values [12] . Patients were considered as having low-Crs if < 50 ml/ cmH 2 O on day 1 of invasive MV. Descriptive variables are expressed as percentage, mean and standard deviation (SD), or median and interquartile range (IQR), as appropriate. Then, we compared variables across groups using Student's t test or Mann-Whitney test and one-way ANOVA or Kruskal-Wallis test for numerical variables, and Chi-squared test or Fisher exact test for categorical variables. Second, to assess the relationship among ARDS severity and discontinuation from mechanical ventilation, ICU discharge and mortality at day 28 time to event curves were plotted using the Kaplan-Meier method and analyzed with log-rank test and univariable Cox regression analysis. The same analysis was performed for the Crs. Time to discontinuation from mechanical ventilation/mortality/ICU discharge was described using Kaplan-Meier plot across categories of ARDS severity, Crs, plateau pressure and driving pressure. For the Kaplan-Meier analyses, patients with the complementary outcome were right-censored at the longest recorded length of stay. Additionally, to test differences between groups, we used log-rank test and univariable Cox regression model due to the absence of imbalances between groups at baseline (or multivariable, adjusted for ARDS, in the case of plateau pressure and driving pressure). As a sensitivity analysis, we reported results using competing-risks approach. Results are consistent across methods [12] . We compared our results for Crs, Pplat, and driving pressure to five studies in the literature [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] using one sample Student's t test. For the largest study (LUNG SAFE), we estimated median Crs from Supplemental Figure e2 , since it was not explicitly reporter in the study. When mean values of the whole cohort were not reported, we calculated it from the mean values of the study groups.

As this is an observational study and no harm is inflicted and no benefit is neglected to patients in the study, we aimed to recruit as many patients as possible, with no pre-defined sample size. All time to events were defined from day 1 of invasive MV. Missing data were not imputed. Analyses were performed in a complete case analysis basis. All tests were two-sided, and a p-value < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. We have applied the Benjamini-Hochberg corrections procedure, and have marked with an asterisk the p values that were < 0.05 after the correction. All analyses were performed with STATA version 16.

Over a period of 81 days (between 12 March and June 1, 2020), 742 mechanically ventilated patients admitted to 36 ICUs were included in the study and followed for at least 28 days (Fig. 1 ). The distribution of included patients among the different participating hospitals is shown in Table S1 . The enrollment and follow-up of patients are still ongoing, and as of June 29 2020, 100 (13%) patients were still in the ICU. Demographics, APACHE II and SOFA scores, vital signs and laboratory findings at baseline are shown in Table 1 and Table S2 . The percent of patients with severe, moderate and mild ARDS was 38.1%, 44.6% and 17.2%, respectively (Table 1) ; the percentage of severe ARDS patients was higher than a number of other large observational studies in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients.

The percent of patients with severe ARDS decreased markedly from Day 1 to Day 2 and remained at this lower level from day 2 onwards (Fig. 2 ). This was paralleled by an increase in the percentage of patients with mild ARDS. From the 296 patients (40.8%) with compliance data, 78% (231) were classified as having low Crs (Tables S2, S3 and Figure S1 ). From these 296 patients, 35.7% were classified as severe, 44.4% as moderate and 18.9% as mild.

Median time from the onset of symptoms to initiation of invasive MV was 12 (IQR: 9-16) days, and from hospital admission to initiation of invasive MV was 5 (IQR: 2-8) days. The median VT at baseline was 6.9 (IQR: 6.3-7.8) ml/kg predicted body weight (PBW); in 23% of patients the VT never exceeded 6 ml/kg PBW. The median highest VT, including during the weaning process with assist modes, was 8.4 (IQR: 7.3-9.5) ml/kg PBW. The median PEEP at baseline was 12 (IQR: 11-14) cmH 2 Figure S5 ).

Continuous NMBA were used in 72% of patients, prone position in 76%, and RM in 79%. Degree of ARDS severity was associated with significant differences in the use of prone position (p < 0.001) and NMBA (p = 0.01), but not RM (Table 2, Figure S6 ). No differences were observed in patients with normal vs low Crs (Table S3 and Figure S7 ). The pharmacological treatments received by the patients is shown in Table S5 .

Mean VFDs (to day 30) was 14 [IQR: 3-20] days. As of June 29, 2020, 401 (54%) patients were discharged from the ICU with an ICU LOS of 19 [IQR: 11-37] days. Allcause 28-day mortality was 32% (241 patients) distributed as 39% in severe, 29% in moderate and 24% in mild ARDS ( Table 2 ). These mortality values were similar to those from four observational studies from the past 10 years (Table S6 ). The probability of discontinuation of MV was not significantly affected by the ARDS severity (Fig. 3) . The probability of ICU discharge was higher in mild [hazard ratio (RR) 1.49 (95% CI 1.08-2.04), p = 0.014], but not in moderate when compared to severe ARDS (Table 2 and [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] 17 [12-28.5] 17 [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] 17.5 [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] 0.940 ICU length of stay of deceased patients 17 [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] 17 [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] 17 [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] 17 [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] 0.803 (Fig. 3) . Sensitivity analysis for outcomes are shown in Figure S8 . The ICU discharge and risk of 28-day mortality was not affected by Crs (Table S3 and Figure S9 ). The association of driving pressure and Pplat on outcomes are shown in Figure S10 . Patients classified as moderate ARDS who, after 24 h of MV moved to mild ARDS, had a strong trend towards a lower 28 day mortality, than those who remained classified as moderate ARDS on day 2, but this association was not statistically significant [HR: 0.55 (95% CI 0.26-1.15), p value = 0.113]. In general, being treated in specific hospitals had no impact on outcomes ( Figure S11 ).

In this multicenter, observational study in 742 mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS, predominantly older, male patients with comorbid conditions, with a median ICU length of stay of 21 days, the majority had moderate ARDS, and greater than 80% had low Crs. The values of Crs, Pplat and driving pressure were very similar to previously published cohorts of ARDS patients. On average, patients were managed with low VT and moderate PEEP levels within the standard paradigm of lung-protective VT. Adjunctive therapies, such as RMs or prone position, were used frequently. Mortality at 28-days was similar to patients with non-COVID ARDS. As previously reported for patients with COVID-19, the most common comorbidities were arterial hypertension and obesity [4, 18] . The main reason for ICU admission in our study was acute respiratory failure, although the SOFA scores indicated more than one organ dysfunction. Hemodynamic impairment requiring vasopressors was the most common associated organ dysfunction, in agreement with the findings of Goyal et al. [18] , where 95% of their invasively ventilated patients required vasopressors. Of note, the median time from symptoms onset to hospital admission was similar to that reported previously [19] . On average, hypoxia was severe within the range of previous reports on COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 ARDS patients [4, 13, 20] . The proportions of severe COVID-19 ARDS patients were greater than those reported in epidemiological studies of non-COVID-19 ARDS [14] (Table S6 ). However, we found, as previously reported, a marked redistribution of ARDS severity 24 h after ARDS diagnosis [21] . This reduction in the percentage of patients with severe ARDS criteria may be related to positive pressure ventilation by itself, to the effectiveness of adjunctive measures, or (unlikely) the natural history of the disease process (Fig. 2) . Although it was not the aim of this analysis, it is important to highlight that some investigators argue that the degree of ARDS severity is best evaluated 24 h after assessing PaO 2 /FiO 2 under certain ventilatory settings [22] .

Our findings in a cohort of over 700 patients are in line with preliminary studies of COVID-19 ARDS patients [23, 24] . We found no significant differences when baseline Crs, Pplat and driving pressure were compared to non-COVID-19 ARDS observational and randomized ARDS studies (Table S6 ). These comparisons were not based on a formal meta-analysis, and thus, these comparisons serve to demonstrate that there are no differences in these baseline values for COVID-19 ARDS to non-COVID-19 ARDS.

In general, compliance with lung-protective ventilation was high, independent of the degree of severity of the disease process and somewhat higher on average than in previous observational studies of non-COVID-19 ARDS patients [13, 20] . This finding was likely due to a greater awareness that these patients had ARDS. As reported in the LUNG SAFE study, one of the main problems in not complying with lung protection strategies was the underdiagnosis of ARDS [25] . In our cohort, invasive MV was maintained within the limits of lung-protective ventilation, as defined using a VT ≤ 8 ml/kg PBW, Pplat < 30 cmH 2 O, and a driving pressure ≤ 15 cmH 2 O [26] . In our cohort, RMs were the most frequent adjunctive therapies used, followed by prone position, and NMBA. These findings are in contrast to reported practice in non-COVID-19 severe ARDS patients [4, 13, 20] . Surprisingly, the use of RMs was not influenced by ARDS severity or by Crs. Both RMs and prone ventilation are usually performed to improve arterial oxygenation, and reduce ventilator-induced lung injury [27, 28] . The impact of these maneuvers depends on the recruitability of the lung, which has been shown to be variable in COVID-19 ARDS [29] .

In our experience, respiratory drive in COVID-19 ARDS patients appeared to be high, despite adequate sedation, making it difficult to maintain low transpulmonary pressures, which could lead to self-inflicted lung injury [30] . This bedside observation may explain the high number of patients in whom NMBA were used. Another reason for the high use of NMBA could be the large number of patients treated in the prone position;

(See figure on next page.) Fig. 3 Time to event curves using Kaplan-Meier with univariable Cox regression. The probability of discontinuation from mechanical ventilation and the probability of ICU discharge increase with decreasing ARDS. The 28-day probability of death was higher in severe ARDS. ICU intensive care unit, ARDS acute respiratory distress syndrome although NMBA are not required, they are often used in these patients, as reported in previous studies [17] . Nonetheless, the protective effects of NMBA have been seriously questioned in ARDS [16, 31] . The probability of being discharged from the ICU was influenced by ARDS severity but not by Crs, as reported in studies of non-COVID-19 ARDS patients [13] . All-cause 28-day mortality was similar or lower than previously published for non-COVID (Table S6) and COVID-19 ARDS [4, 32, 33] patients.

This study has several strengths. The study was very large with over 700 patients from 36 ICUs. As well, this is the first study to provide very detailed physiological data and ventilation strategies during the entire ventilatory period in COVID-19 ARDS patients. However, we acknowledge a number of limitations. First, our study design did not allow us to analyze potential associations of ventilatory strategies with outcomes. Second, we were unable to determine why certain therapeutic approaches were used; for example, how PEEP was adjusted (pragmatic or individualized approach), or why adjunctive therapies (RM, prone position) were applied (usual practice, refractory hypoxemia, etc.), or the indications and timings of ECMO, or corticosteroids. Third, Cox regression analysis was not adjusted for confounders. The main reasons were the low grade of imbalances in the groups in the relevant baseline variables. Fourth, due to the critical moment of the pandemic, and that most participating centers had rapidly reached ICU saturation and intensivists were forced to make difficult decisions, we did not collect the total number of patients admitted to participant ICUs during the study period. Finally, it is plausible that due to the burden of care experienced by participating clinicians during the study period, the ventilatory strategy and specifically, the use of adjunctive therapies may not be representative of clinical practice in non-pandemic circumstances.

In conclusion, in this large series, COVID-19 ARDS patients appear to have similar physiological features to other causes of ARDS including respiratory system compliance, plateau pressure and driving pressure. Compliance with lung-protective ventilation was high, and the risk of 28-day mortality increased with the severity of ARDS, but was not greater than other studies in non-COVID-19 ARDS patients.

A novel coronavirus genome identified in a cluster of pneumonia cases-Wuhan

Critical care utilization for the COVID-19 outbreak in Lombardy, Italy: early experience and forecast during an emergency response

Clinical predictors of mortality due to COVID-19 based on an analysis of data of 150 patients from Wuhan

Baseline characteristics and outcomes of 1591 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 admitted to ICUs of the Lombardy region

Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan

Covid-19 does not lead to a "typical" acute respiratory distress syndrome

COVID-19 pneumonia: different respiratory treatment for different phenotypes?

Management of COVID-19 respiratory distress

ARDS Definition Task Force et al (2012) Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin Definition

Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

Clinical management of severe acute respiratory infection when novel coronavirus (nCoV) infection is suspected: interim guidance

How to handle mortality when investigating length of hospital stay and time to clinical stability

Epidemiology, patterns of care, and mortality for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome in intensive care units in 50 countries

Open Lung Approach Network et al (2016) Open lung approach for the acute respiratory distress syndrome: a pilot, randomized controlled trial

Effect of lung recruitment and titrated positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) vs low PEEP on mortality in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome: a randomized clinical trial

National Heart, lung, and blood institute PETAL clinical trials network (2019) Early neuromuscular blockade in the acute respiratory distress syndrome

Prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome

Clinical characteristics of COVID-19 in New York city

Clinical course and outcomes of critically ill patients with SARS-CoV-2 pneumonia in Wuhan, China

The ALIEN study: incidence and outcome of acute respiratory distress syndrome in the era of lung protective ventilation

Resolved versus confirmed ARDS after 24h: insights from the LUNG SAFE study

A clinical classification on the acute respiratory distress syndrome for predicting outcome and guiding medical therapy

Respiratory pathophysiology of mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19: a cohort study

Respiratory mechanics and gas exchange in COVID-19 associated respiratory failure

Missed or delayed diagnosis of ARDS: a common and serious problem

Driving airway and transpulmonary pressure are correlated to VILI determinants during controlled ventilation

Effect of lung recruitment maneuver on oxygenation, physiological parameters and mortality in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Investigators of the APRONET Study Group, the REVA Network, the Réseau recherche de la Société Française d' Anesthésie-Réanimation (SFAR-recherche), and the ESICM Trials Group et al (2018) A prospective international observational prevalence study on prone positioning of ARDS patients: the APRONET (ARDS Prone Position Network) study

Recruitability and effect of PEEP in SARS-Cov-2-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome

Respiratory drive in the acute respiratory distress syndrome: pathophysiology, monitoring, and therapeutic interventions

Early paralytic agents for ARDS? Yes, no, sometimes

Clinical features of patients infected with 2019 novel coronavirus in Wuhan

Characteristics and outcomes of 21 critically ill patients with COVID-19 in Washington State

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by CF, RM, MM, AG, EA, CA and GM-P. The first draft of the manuscript was written by CF and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. 

The authors declare no conflicts of interest in relation to this manuscript.

The study was approved by the referral Ethics Committee of Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, Spain (code number HBC/2020/0399).

This is an observational study. The need for written informed consent from participants was considered by each participating center.

Not applicable.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.