Next Article in Journal
Risk Factors for Coronary Artery Calcifications in Overweight or Obese Persons with Prediabetes: Can They Predict T2 Diabetes and Coronary Vascular Events?
Next Article in Special Issue
A High Respiratory Drive Is Associated with Weaning Failure in Patients with COVID-19-Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: The Role of the Electrical Activity of the Diaphragm
Previous Article in Journal
Obesity, Inflammation, Growth, and Metabolism: Evolution of Understanding and Evolving Functions of Old and New Peptides
Previous Article in Special Issue
Metabolic Support in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Narrative Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 12
Issue 12
10.3390/jcm12123914
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

PEEP Titration Is Markedly Affected by Trunk Inclination in Mechanically Ventilated Patients with COVID-19 ARDS: A Physiologic, Cross-Over Study

by
Francesco Marrazzo
1,†,
Stefano Spina
1,†,
Francesco Zadek
2,
Clarissa Forlini
1,
Gabriele Bassi
1,
Riccardo Giudici
1,
Giacomo Bellani
2,3,
Roberto Fumagalli
1,2 and
Thomas Langer
1,2,*
1
Department of Anesthesia and Critical Care, ASST Grande Ospedale Metropolitano Niguarda, 20162 Milano, Italy
2
School of Medicine and Surgery, University of Milano-Bicocca, 20126 Milano, Italy
3
Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care 1, Santa Chiara Hospital, APSS Trento, 38122 Trento, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12(12), 3914; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12123914
Submission received: 22 April 2023 / Revised: 4 June 2023 / Accepted: 6 June 2023 / Published: 8 June 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Respiratory Support in ICU: The COVID-19 Lessons)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Changing trunk inclination affects lung function in patients with ARDS. However, its impacts on PEEP titration remain unknown. The primary aim of this study was to assess, in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19 ARDS, the effects of trunk inclination on PEEP titration. The secondary aim was to compare respiratory mechanics and gas exchange in the semi-recumbent (40° head-of-the-bed) and supine-flat (0°) positions following PEEP titration. Methods: Twelve patients were positioned both at 40° and 0° trunk inclination (randomized order). The PEEP associated with the best compromise between overdistension and collapse guided by Electrical Impedance Tomography (PEEPEIT) was set. After 30 min of controlled mechanical ventilation, data regarding respiratory mechanics, gas exchange, and EIT parameters were collected. The same procedure was repeated for the other trunk inclination. Results: PEEPEIT was lower in the semi-recumbent than in the supine-flat position (8 ± 2 vs. 13 ± 2 cmH2O, p < 0.001). A semi-recumbent position with optimized PEEP resulted in higher PaO2:FiO2 (141 ± 46 vs. 196 ± 99, p = 0.02) and a lower global inhomogeneity index (46 ± 10 vs. 53 ± 11, p = 0.008). After 30 min of observation, a loss of aeration (measured by EIT) was observed only in the supine-flat position (−153 ± 162 vs. 27 ± 203 mL, p = 0.007). Conclusions: A semi-recumbent position is associated with lower PEEPEIT and results in better oxygenation, less derecruitment, and more homogenous ventilation compared to the supine-flat position.

1. Introduction

Invasive mechanical ventilation is a lifesaving support in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Its implementation is challenging since it can further deteriorate lung function (ventilator-induced lung injury—VILI) [1]. To reduce the incidence of VILI, several measures can be adopted [2,3]. On the one hand, these measures can operate on the ventilator through individualization of ventilator settings, such as tidal volume and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) [4,5]. On the other, they operate to improve the patient-ventilator interaction by changing patients’ postures, such as during prone position [6,7]. A less investigated postural factor is the angle of trunk inclination in supine, mechanically ventilated patients [8,9,10]. Indeed, in this context, variations in trunk inclination have a marked effect on respiratory mechanics [8,9,11,12]. We recently described an increase in respiratory system compliance in patients with COVID-19-associated ARDS (C-ARDS) when trunk inclination was changed from a semi-recumbent to a supine-flat position at a constant ventilatory setting. In addition, the supine-flat position improved carbon dioxide (CO2) clearance, suggesting the occurrence of alveolar hyperinflation in the semi-recumbent position [11]. Given these premises, one could hypothesize that the incidence of VILI might be reduced with the use of a supine-flat position. However, a trunk inclination up to 45° is suggested by the bundles for ventilator-associated pneumonia prevention [13].
As we hypothesized that the “best” PEEP [14] might be markedly affected by trunk inclination, we investigated whether similar positive effects on lung mechanics and gas exchange, observed in the supine-flat position, could be obtained in a semi-recumbent position with optimized PEEP.
The primary aim of the present study was therefore to evaluate whether there is a difference between “best PEEP” titrated with Electrical Impedance Tomography (EIT) in supine-flat and semi-recumbent positions [14,15]. The secondary aim was to evaluate the impact of trunk inclination on respiratory mechanics, gas exchange, and EIT parameters following PEEP optimization.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Population

This is a single-center, cross-over, physiologic study. Patients were consecutively enrolled from February 2022 to March 2022. The study was approved by the institutional review board (Ref# 82-16022022) and informed consent was obtained according to Italian regulations. The inclusion and exclusion criteria were the following:

2.2. Inclusion Criteria

  • Laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection
  • Diagnosis of ARDS according to Berlin definition [16]
  • Deep sedation, paralysis, and controlled mechanical ventilation

2.3. Exclusion Criteria

  • Age < 18 years
  • Contraindications to recruitment maneuver due to one of the following conditions: hemodynamic instability (defined as mean artery pressure < 60 mmHg with norepinephrine > 0.3 mg/kg/min), emphysema with subpleural pulmonary bullae, pneumomediastinum, bronchopleural fistulae
  • Contraindications to the placement of EIT belts (i.e., implantable cardiac pacemaker or defibrillator, trauma or burn of the chest wall) [17,18]
  • Contraindications to mobilization (i.e., unstable spinal injury, intracranial hypertension)
  • Pregnancy
At study enrollment, demographic and clinical data were collected.

2.4. Respiratory Monitoring

Patients were on volume-controlled ventilation (Dräger Evita V800, Dräger Medical, Lübeck, Germany). A 5-French esophageal balloon (CooperSurgical, Trumbull, CT, USA) was placed, and its correct position checked by Baydur maneuver [19]. A 16-electrode EIT belt was placed around the chest (between the 4th and 5th intercostal space) and connected to a dedicated monitor [20]. Airway pressure, esophageal pressure, and EIT images were continuously recorded and stored for subsequent offline analyses (Pulmovista 500 and Pressure Pod, Dräger Medical, Lübeck, Germany).

2.5. Study Protocol

All patients underwent two steps where trunk inclination was changed from semi-recumbent to supine-flat or vice versa (cross-over design), depending on randomization.
Opaque sealed envelopes and a block randomization were used to ensure the balance of the starting position (half of the envelopes consisting of a first step in the supine-flat position and a second step in the semi-recumbent position, and the other half consisting of a first step in the semi-recumbent position and a second step in the supine-flat position). Once patients were considered eligible, the opaque envelope was randomly drawn immediately prior to starting any procedure. Based on the recent literature [11], we did not expect a carry-over effect of the starting position. However, the randomization guaranteed a balanced starting position, eliminating this potential confounding factor.
At the beginning of each step, the proper function of the esophageal balloon was reassessed. Then, a recruitment maneuver was performed with pressure-controlled ventilation with a respiratory rate of 10 breaths/min, an inspiratory to expiratory ratio of 1:1, and a pressure control of 15 cmH2O. Initially, PEEP was set at 15 cmH2O and then increased by 5 cmH2O every 30 s, up to a PEEP of 25 cmH2O. A decremental PEEP trial was then performed with volume-controlled ventilation, maintaining the tidal volume set by clinicians. PEEP was initially set at 20 cmH2O and reduced stepwise by 2 cmH2O down to a minimum PEEP value of 6 cmH2O. The recruitment maneuver was promptly interrupted if severe hypotension developed (i.e., systolic blood pressure < 70 mmHg or mean artery pressure < 40 mmHg) or if peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) decreased below 88% despite a progressive increase in FiO2 up to 1.0. At each PEEP level, the percentage of lung overdistension and collapse were calculated by comparing pixel compliances at different PEEP levels and then displayed with EIT. The PEEP value associated with the best compromise of overdistension and collapse was defined as the best PEEP by using EIT (PEEPEIT, primary endpoint), as previously described [14,15,21]. A constant inspiratory flow (40 L/minute) was set, and a brief constant inspiratory hold (0.4 s) was obtained. Thus, driving pressure during the decremental PEEP trial was also calculated. After an additional recruitment maneuver, PEEPEIT was set and ventilation continued for 30 min without changing trunk inclination. Partitioned respiratory mechanics, blood gas analysis, and basic hemodynamics were recorded thereafter (secondary endpoints). Then, trunk inclination was changed and the entire procedure was repeated (Figure 1).
All 12 patients underwent 2 30 min steps. Ventilatory settings were kept constant throughout the study in all patients, except for PEEP, which was set according to the EIT-based PEEP titration. At the end of each study step, we measured/calculated:
  • Vital signs: heart rate; blood pressure; central venous pressure; peripheral oxygen saturation.
  • Partitioned respiratory mechanics: tidal volume; respiratory rate; mean airway pressure; total positive end-expiratory pressure; plateau pressure; driving pressure; esophageal pressure at end-inspiration and at end-expiration; transpulmonary pressure at end-inspiration and at end-expiration; driving transpulmonary pressure; respiratory system, chest wall, and lung compliance.
  • Venous and arterial blood gas analysis: pH; SaO2; SvO2; PaO2:FiO2; oxygenation index; PaCO2; ∆PvCO2-PaCO2; venous admixture; alveolar dead space; ventilatory ratio; lactates.
  • Electrical Impedance Tomography: EIT data were acquired and stored throughout the study; end-expiratory lung impedance (EELI); change in end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) based on EELI (see below); percentage of ventilation distribution in the ventral and dorsal regions; regional respiratory system compliance (ventral and dorsal); global inhomogeneity index [22,23].
EIT images were continuously recorded and divided into two horizontal regions of interest of similar size to compute ventilation distribution and regional compliance of the dorsal and ventral lung areas [24]. The Global inhomogeneity index was recorded [22]. Variations in end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) were calculated from changes in end-expiratory lung impedance (EELI) recorded during the 30-min observation [25,26].

2.6. Sample Size Calculation

We calculated that a sample size of 12 would provide a power of 0.95 with an alfa-error of 0.05 to detect a difference in PEEPEIT between the semi-recumbent and supine-flat positions of 3 cmH2O, assuming a standard deviation of 2.5 cmH2O, using a two-tailed paired t-student test. The expected mean difference of 3 ± 2 cmH2O was based on the difference in plateau pressure observed in a similar setting [11].

2.7. Statistical Analyses

Continuous variables are expressed as mean ± SD or median [IQR] as appropriate, while categorical variables are expressed as count and percentage. The normality of the distribution was tested using the Shapiro–Wilk test. Continuous variables were compared with the paired Student’s t-test or Mann–Whitney as appropriate. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05. Analysis was performed with Stata statistical software (StataCorp, College Station, TX, USA) and SigmaPlot (Systat Software, San Jose, CA, USA).

3. Results

Twelve patients were enrolled and studied 3 ± 2 days after intubation. Study subjects were 65 ± 8 years old, mainly non-obese, predominantly male and on protective mechanical ventilation settings (Table 1).
The percentage of alveolar overdistension and collapse observed with EIT during the decremental PEEP trial differed markedly according to the patients’ trunk inclination (Figure 2A,B). Interestingly, the percentage of alveolar overdistension and collapse at PEEPEIT were significantly higher in the supine-flat position (10 ± 5 vs. 5 ± 3%, p = 0.002 and 9 ± 5 vs. 5 ± 3%, p = 0.001, respectively). Moreover, alveolar collapse started at a higher PEEP value in the supine-flat position (at PEEP values between 18 and 16 cmH2O) compared to the semi-recumbent position (at PEEP values between 12 and 10 cmH2O) during the decremental PEEP trial. Conversely, alveolar overdistension appeared at very low PEEP values in the semi-recumbent position. As a result, PEEPEIT, i.e., the PEEP associated with the best compromise between alveolar distension and collapse, was significantly higher in the supine-flat position compared to the semi-recumbent position (13 ± 2 vs. 8 ± 2 cmH2O, p < 0.001; Figure 3). Furthermore, driving pressure calculated during the decremental PEEP trial was the lowest at the best PEEPEIT (Figure 2C,D). This suggests a concordance between the best PEEP identified by EIT and the best PEEP associated with the highest respiratory system compliance.
Lung impedance variations at end-inspiration and at end-expiration recorded during the decremental PEEP trial in the two positions are represented in Figure 4, Panel A and B). Notably, the semi-recumbent position showed a progressive decrease in lung impedance variation as airway pressure increased (Figure 4B). This was not the case for the supine-flat position, in which the progressive decrease in impedance variation at higher airway pressures was less pronounced (Figure 4A). This finding further confirms the occurrence of alveolar overdistension at lower airway pressures (i.e., at lower PEEP values) in the semi-recumbent position.
Differences in respiratory and EIT variables observed after 30 min of stabilization are summarized in Table 2. As a consequence of the lower PEEP set in the semi-recumbent position, peak inspiratory, plateau, and mean airway pressure were all significantly lower in patients with 40° head-of-the-bed elevation. Despite the optimization of PEEP, the respiratory system compliance was slightly, but significantly, higher in the supine-flat compared to the semi-recumbent position (48 (38–67) vs. 42 (36–68), mL/cmH2O, p = 0.005). Similarly, driving pressure was slightly, but significantly, lower in the supine-flat position (9 ± 3 vs. 10 ± 4 cmH2O, p = 0.005). These differences are likely explained by a higher chest wall compliance in the supine-flat position (p = 0.002), as lung compliance was similar between the two angles of trunk inclination (p = 0.19).
Despite a lower PEEP after optimization, oxygenation improved in the semi-recumbent position, as demonstrated by a lower venous admixture (34 ± 12 vs. 28 ± 12%, p = 0.02), a higher PaO2:FiO2 (141 ± 46 vs. 196 ± 99, p = 0.02) and a lower oxygenation index (14 ± 6 vs. 8 ± 4, p < 0.001). CO2 clearance was not significantly affected by trunk inclination once PEEP was optimized.
Ventilation distribution assessed with EIT did not differ markedly according to trunk inclination. Nevertheless, the global inhomogeneity index was significantly higher in the supine-flat position (53 ± 11 vs. 46 ± 10, p = 0.008), suggesting a more homogenous ventilation distribution in the semi-recumbent position. The difference between end-inspiratory transpulmonary pressure assessed with absolute values and end-inspiratory transpulmonary pressure calculated with the elastance ratio was smaller in the semi-recumbent position (11 ± 3 vs. 4 ± 4 cmH2O, p < 0.001). This difference is considered a reasonable proxy of the pleural pressure gradient [27]. The end-expiratory absolute transpulmonary pressure was 0 ± 3 cmH2O in the supine-flat position and 2 ± 3 cmH2O in semi-recumbent position (p = 0.06). A significantly different change in EELV (EELI-derived) was observed during the 30-min observation period between the two positions, with EELV being reduced in the supine-flat position and slightly increased in semi-recumbent position. Of note, 60% of lung aeration loss in the supine-flat position occurred in the dorsal, dependent part of the lung.
Central venous pressure was significantly lower in the semi-recumbent position following PEEP optimization (10 ± 3 vs. 4 ± 3 mmH2O, p < 0.001). No other significant differences in hemodynamics were observed (e-Table S1 of the OSM, Supplementary Materials).

4. Discussion

The major finding of our study is that trunk inclination has a marked effect on the respiratory system and that significantly lower PEEP values are required in the semi-recumbent position to optimize respiratory mechanics in mechanically ventilated patients with C-ARDS.
One of the main explanations for these findings is the increase in EELV in the semi-recumbent position, shifting the pressure–volume curve of the respiratory system to the left, i.e., having for the same airway pressure a higher gas volume. We did not measure EELV; however, multiple studies have demonstrated the increase in EELV in ARDS patients once placed semi-recumbent [8,9,10]. Furthermore, this hypothesis is upheld by the fact that, during the PEEP trial, alveolar overdistension was present at lower airway pressures in the semi-recumbent compared to the supine-flat position, suggesting that open alveoli had a higher baseline gas volume. Similarly, alveolar collapse started at lower airway pressures compared to the same patients placed supine-flat. This last result is likely attributable to the higher dorsal intra-abdominal pressure that is transmitted to the thoracic cavity in the supine-flat position. The pressure–lung impedance variation curve, a proxy of the pressure-volume curve [28], further corroborates this hypothesis. Indeed, lung impedance increased approximately linearly in the supine-flat position for the explored pressure range. Conversely, clear signs of overdistension were present in semi-recumbent position, with minimal increases in lung impedance despite the reached higher airway pressures, suggesting that total lung capacity was almost reached. Figure 5 schematizes the implications on respiratory mechanics of a position-related shift of the pressure–volume curve.
EIT allowed identifying the PEEP value with the best compromise between alveolar collapse and overdistension [14,15]. Besides having different values according to the employed trunk inclination, the corresponding fractions of alveolar collapse and overdistension were significantly lower in the semi-recumbent position. In other words, in the same patients, the “best” PEEP in the semi-recumbent position was associated with a lower percentage of overdistended and collapsed lung parenchyma. This finding might be explained by a greater tendency towards alveolar collapse in the supine-flat position, due, once again, to the lower starting EELV and to the possible role of the pressure exerted by the abdominal content on the dorsal, dependent lung regions [12,29,30,31,32,33,34,35].
Moreover, we recorded a lower global inhomogeneity index and a smaller pleural pressure gradient [27] in the semi-recumbent position. Taken together, these data point toward a more homogenous ventilation distribution in this position.
As a consequence of the lower PEEP value, mean and plateau airway pressure were significantly lower, with possible implications regarding hemodynamics. Indeed, a lower central venous pressure may improve venous return. Despite the lower PEEP, not only did we observe a significant improvement in oxygenation, as indicated by venous admixture, PaO2:FiO2, and the oxygenation index, but we also recorded a lower tendency towards alveolar derecruitment over the 30 min observation period. This assertion is based on the fact that a significant reduction in EELV (EELI-derived) over time was observed in the supine-flat position (mainly dorsal), while it did not change or even slightly increased when patients were placed semi-recumbent. A possible role of end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure is conceivable, as we observed a trend toward higher values in the semi-recumbent position.
Finally, we observed a similar CO2 clearance in the two positions. This finding differs from our previous study [11], where CO2 clearance worsened in semi-recumbent patients. These data further corroborate the hypothesis of a major role of alveolar overdistension as responsible for worse CO2 clearance in semi-recumbent position when PEEP was not optimized.

4.1. Clinical Implications

There are several approaches to set PEEP at the bedside [14,36,37], and currently, no technique has been shown to be superior. In some time-consuming methods (e.g., compliance or EIT-based ones), the patient’s position certainly contributes to defining the “best” PEEP. On the contrary, the simpler and frequently applied PEEP-FiO2 tables do not consider this aspect [4]. The results of our study support the use of physiology-based PEEP titrations, as these approaches take into account trunk inclination. In addition, our study conveys a straightforward clinical message: physiology-based PEEP titration should be performed in the position in which we plan to ventilate our patient. Indeed, as we demonstrated, performing the PEEP titration in the supine-flat position and applying the identified “best” PEEP in semi-recumbent position will lead to significant overdistension. On the contrary, alveolar collapse could be favored if PEEP was optimized in the semi-recumbent position and the supine-flat position was chosen for long-term ventilation (Figure 5). Of course, patients’ trunk inclination is changed several times during the day, e.g., for nursing and medical procedures. As it is not feasible to perform a PEEP titration at every trunk inclination change, it seems reasonable to propose a bedside “rule of thumb” for PEEP correction: increase PEEP by approximately 1 cmH2O for every 10° angle reduction (and vice versa). It is worth mentioning that a certain variability in response to trunk inclination exists and could be explained by different mechanical characteristics of the respiratory system [38].
Similarly to clinical practice, we find it of paramount importance in clinical trials to report the used trunk inclination both for PEEP titration performance and long-term mechanical ventilation [39]. Indeed, if PEEP titration is performed in supine-flat patients and the semi-recumbent position is chosen for mechanical ventilation, this could lead to significant overdistension, potentially increasing the incidence of barotrauma and VILI [40]. In addition to this consideration, it might be of interest to speculate on which trunk inclination could be associated with a lower risk of VILI, provided PEEP is optimized. Our short-term data certainly do not allow us to draw conclusions. However, a lower airway pressure, a lower percentage of overdistention and collapse, more homogenous ventilation, and better oxygenation were recorded in the semi-recumbent position, once PEEP was optimized. In addition, despite some controversies [41], the semi-recumbent position is suggested to reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia [42]. Taking these considerations together, we think that there might be some benefit in ventilating patients in the semi-recumbent position, although it is mandatory to optimize PEEP.

4.2. Limitations

The fact that only patients with C-ARDS were enrolled is both a strength and a limitation. On the one hand, the population was very homogenous, characterized by respiratory failure with the same etiology. On the other, we might wonder if our findings can be transferred to patients with “classical” ARDS. Despite some possible differences with C-ARDS [43,44] we think that, based on the available literature [8,9] and the current physiological understanding, it is safe to hypothesize a similar behavior in patients with “classical” ARDS. The short-term nature of the study is an additional limitation.

5. Conclusions

There is no single “best” PEEP for a given patient, at a given moment. Indeed, the angle of trunk inclination has a major effect on the respiratory system characteristics of mechanically ventilated patients with C-ARDS, with clear clinical implications. In particular, the “best” PEEP is markedly lower in the semi-recumbent than in the supine-flat position. In addition, several aspects, including more homogenous ventilation, better oxygenation, and less derecruitment, suggest that the semi-recumbent position (with optimized PEEP) might have some advantages over the supine-flat position.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/jcm12123914/s1, e-Table S1: Difference of hemodynamics and blood gas analysis between supine-flat and semi-recumbent position after PEEP titration. References [45,46] are cited in the Supplementary Materials.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: F.M., S.S., F.Z., R.F. and T.L.; Methodology: F.M., S.S., F.Z., R.F. and T.L.; Project administration: F.M., S.S. and T.L.; Formal analysis: F.M., S.S., F.Z. and T.L.; Resources: F.M., S.S., R.F. and T.L.; Investigation: F.M., S.S., F.Z., C.F., R.G., G.B. (Gabriele Bassi) and T.L.; Data curation: F.M., S.S., F.Z., C.F., R.G., G.B. (Gabriele Bassi) and T.L.; Writing-original draft preparation: F.M., S.S., F.Z., G.B. (Giacomo Bellani) and T.L.; Writing-review and editing: F.M., S.S., F.Z., G.B. (Giacomo Bellani) and T.L.; Visualization: F.M., S.S., F.Z., G.B. (Giacomo Bellani) and T.L.; Supervision: R.F. and T.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board of “Comitato Etico Milano Area 3” (Ref# 82-16022022 approved on 21 February 2022).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, [T.L.], upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The authors are deeply grateful to all the physicians and nurses of the COVID-19 Intensive Care Units of the Niguarda Hospital.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Slutsky, A.S.; Ranieri, V.M. Ventilator-Induced Lung Injury. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013, 369, 2126–2136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Fan, E.; Del Sorbo, L.; Goligher, E.C.; Hodgson, C.L.; Munshi, L.; Walkey, A.J.; Adhikari, N.K.J.; Amato, M.B.P.; Branson, R.; Brower, R.G.; et al. An Official American Thoracic Society/European Society of Intensive Care Medicine/Society of Critical Care Medicine Clinical Practice Guideline: Mechanical Ventilation in Adult Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2017, 195, 1253–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Tonetti, T.; Vasques, F.; Rapetti, F.; Maiolo, G.; Collino, F.; Romitti, F.; Camporota, L.; Cressoni, M.; Cadringher, P.; Quintel, M.; et al. Driving Pressure and Mechanical Power: New Targets for VILI Prevention. Ann. Transl. Med. 2017, 5, 286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  4. Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network; Brower, R.G.; Matthay, M.A.; Morris, A.; Schoenfeld, D.; Thompson, B.T.; Wheeler, A. Ventilation with Lower Tidal Volumes as Compared with Traditional Tidal Volumes for Acute Lung Injury and the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 2000, 342, 1301–1308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Gattinoni, L.; Tonetti, T.; Cressoni, M.; Cadringher, P.; Herrmann, P.; Moerer, O.; Protti, A.; Gotti, M.; Chiurazzi, C.; Carlesso, E.; et al. Ventilator-Related Causes of Lung Injury: The Mechanical Power. Intensive Care Med. 2016, 42, 1567–1575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Langer, T.; Brioni, M.; Guzzardella, A.; Carlesso, E.; Cabrini, L.; Castelli, G.; Dalla Corte, F.; De Robertis, E.; Favarato, M.; Forastieri, A.; et al. Prone Position in Intubated, Mechanically Ventilated Patients with COVID-19: A Multi-Centric Study of More than 1000 Patients. Crit. Care 2021, 25, 128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Guérin, C.; Reignier, J.; Richard, J.-C.; Beuret, P.; Gacouin, A.; Boulain, T.; Mercier, E.; Badet, M.; Mercat, A.; Baudin, O.; et al. Prone Positioning in Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. N. Engl. J. Med. 2013, 368, 2159–2168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Dellamonica, J.; Lerolle, N.; Sargentini, C.; Hubert, S.; Beduneau, G.; Di Marco, F.; Mercat, A.; Diehl, J.L.; Richard, J.C.M.; Bernardin, G.; et al. Effect of Different Seated Positions on Lung Volume and Oxygenation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Intensive Care Med. 2013, 39, 1121–1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mezidi, M.; Guérin, C. Effect of Body Position and Inclination in Supine and Prone Position on Respiratory Mechanics in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Intensive Care Med. 2019, 45, 292–294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Richard, J.-C.M.; Maggiore, S.M.; Mancebo, J.; Lemaire, F.; Jonson, B.; Brochard, L. Effects of Vertical Positioning on Gas Exchange and Lung Volumes in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Intensive Care Med. 2006, 32, 1623–1626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Marrazzo, F.; Spina, S.; Forlini, C.; Guarnieri, M.; Giudici, R.; Bassi, G.; Bastia, L.; Bottiroli, M.; Fumagalli, R.; Langer, T. Effects of Trunk Inclination on Respiratory Mechanics in Patients with COVID-19–Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Let’s Always Report the Angle! Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2022, 205, 582–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Selickman, J.; Crooke, P.S.; Tawfik, P.; Dries, D.J.; Gattinoni, L.; Marini, J.J. Paradoxical Positioning: Does “Head Up” Always Improve Mechanics and Lung Protection? Crit. Care Med. 2022, 50, 1599–1606. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Hellyer, T.P.; Ewan, V.; Wilson, P.; Simpson, A.J. The Intensive Care Society Recommended Bundle of Interventions for the Prevention of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia. J. Intensive Care Soc. 2016, 17, 238–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Costa, E.L.V.; Borges, J.B.; Melo, A.; Suarez-Sipmann, F.; Toufen, C.; Bohm, S.H.; Amato, M.B.P. Bedside Estimation of Recruitable Alveolar Collapse and Hyperdistension by Electrical Impedance Tomography. Intensive Care Med. 2009, 35, 1132–1137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Van der Zee, P.; Somhorst, P.; Endeman, H.; Gommers, D. Electrical Impedance Tomography for Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Titration in COVID-19–Related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2020, 202, 280–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. The ARDS Definition Task Force. Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: The Berlin Definition. JAMA 2012, 307, 2526–2533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Spinelli, E.; Mauri, T.; Fogagnolo, A.; Scaramuzzo, G.; Rundo, A.; Grieco, D.L.; Grasselli, G.; Volta, C.A.; Spadaro, S. Electrical Impedance Tomography in Perioperative Medicine: Careful Respiratory Monitoring for Tailored Interventions. BMC Anesthesiol. 2019, 19, 140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Adler, A.; Amato, M.B.; Arnold, J.H.; Bayford, R.; Bodenstein, M.; Böhm, S.H.; Brown, B.H.; Frerichs, I.; Stenqvist, O.; Weiler, N.; et al. Whither Lung EIT: Where Are We, Where Do We Want to Go and What Do We Need to Get There? Physiol. Meas. 2012, 33, 679–694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Baydur, A.; Behrakis, P.K.; Zin, W.A.; Jaeger, M.; Milic-Emili, J. A Simple Method for Assessing the Validity of the Esophageal Balloon Technique. Am. Rev. Respir. Dis. 1982, 126, 788–791. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Costa, E.L.V.; Lima, R.G.; Amato, M.B.P. Electrical Impedance Tomography. Curr. Opin. Crit. Care 2009, 15, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Gibot, S.; Conrad, M.; Courte, G.; Cravoisy, A. Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Setting in COVID-19-Related Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Comparison Between Electrical Impedance Tomography, PEEP/FiO2 Tables, and Transpulmonary Pressure. Front. Med. 2021, 8, 720920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Zhao, Z.; Möller, K.; Steinmann, D.; Frerichs, I.; Guttmann, J. Evaluation of an Electrical Impedance Tomography-Based Global Inhomogeneity Index for Pulmonary Ventilation Distribution. Intensive Care Med. 2009, 35, 1900–1906. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Zhao, Z.; Pulletz, S.; Frerichs, I.; Müller-Lisse, U.; Möller, K. The EIT-Based Global Inhomogeneity Index Is Highly Correlated with Regional Lung Opening in Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. BMC Res. Notes 2014, 7, 82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Yoshida, T.; Piraino, T.; Lima, C.A.S.; Kavanagh, B.P.; Amato, M.B.P.; Brochard, L. Regional Ventilation Displayed by Electrical Impedance Tomography as an Incentive to Decrease Positive End-Expiratory Pressure. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2019, 200, 933–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hinz, J.; Hahn, G.; Neumann, P.; Sydow, M.; Mohrenweiser, P.; Hellige, G.; Burchardi, H. End-Expiratory Lung Impedance Change Enables Bedside Monitoring of End-Expiratory Lung Volume Change. Intensive Care Med. 2003, 29, 37–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mauri, T.; Eronia, N.; Turrini, C.; Battistini, M.; Grasselli, G.; Rona, R.; Volta, C.A.; Bellani, G.; Pesenti, A. Bedside Assessment of the Effects of Positive End-Expiratory Pressure on Lung Inflation and Recruitment by the Helium Dilution Technique and Electrical Impedance Tomography. Intensive Care Med. 2016, 42, 1576–1587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yoshida, T.; Amato, M.B.P.; Grieco, D.L.; Chen, L.; Lima, C.A.S.; Roldan, R.; Morais, C.C.A.; Gomes, S.; Costa, E.L.V.; Cardoso, P.F.G.; et al. Esophageal Manometry and Regional Transpulmonary Pressure in Lung Injury. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2018, 197, 1018–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Van Genderingen, H.R.; van Vught, A.J.; Jansen, J.R.C. Estimation of Regional Lung Volume Changes by Electrical Impedance Pressures Tomography during a Pressure-Volume Maneuver. Intensive Care Med. 2003, 29, 233–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Bastia, L.; Rezoagli, E.; Guarnieri, M.; Engelberts, D.; Forlini, C.; Marrazzo, F.; Spina, S.; Bassi, G.; Giudici, R.; Post, M.; et al. External Chest-Wall Compression in Prolonged COVID-19 ARDS with Low-Compliance: A Physiological Study. Ann. Intensive Care 2022, 12, 35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Marini, J.J.; Gattinoni, L. Improving Lung Compliance by External Compression of the Chest Wall. Crit. Care 2021, 25, 264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hedenstierna, G.; Tokics, L.; Lundquist, H.; Andersson, T.; Strandberg, Å.; Brismar, B. Phrenic Nerve Stimulation during Halothane Anesthesia: Effects on Atelectasis. Anesthesiology 1994, 80, 751–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Froese, A.B.; Bryan, A.C. Effects of Anesthesia and Paralysis on Diaphragmatic Mechanics in Man. Anesthesiology 1974, 41, 242–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Yoshida, T.; Engelberts, D.; Otulakowski, G.; Katira, B.; Post, M.; Ferguson, N.D.; Brochard, L.; Amato, M.B.P.; Kavanagh, B.P. Continuous Negative Abdominal Pressure Recruits Lungs at Lower Distending Pressures. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2018, 197, 534–537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Selickman, J.; Marini, J.J. Chest Wall Loading in the ICU: Pushes, Weights, and Positions. Ann. Intensive Care 2022, 12, 103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Rezoagli, E.; Bastia, L.; Grassi, A.; Chieregato, A.; Langer, T.; Grasselli, G.; Caironi, P.; Pradella, A.; Santini, A.; Protti, A.; et al. Paradoxical Effect of Chest Wall Compression on Respiratory System Compliance: A Multicenter Case Series of Patients With ARDS, With Multimodal Assessment. Chest 2021, 160, 1335–1339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Rezoagli, E.; Bellani, G. How I Set up Positive End-Expiratory Pressure: Evidence- and Physiology-Based! Crit. Care 2019, 23, 412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Millington, S.J.; Cardinal, P.; Brochard, L. Setting and Titrating Positive End-Expiratory Pressure. Chest 2022, 161, 1566–1575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Oppersma, E.; Geraats, S.; Heikens, N.H.; Welleweerd, A.; Woerts, C.A.; Fresiello, L.; Meuwese, C.L.; Donker, D.W. Finite Element Modeling of Pulmonary Mechanics in Severe ARDS: Explaining the Inclination Angle? Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2022, 206, 798–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Talmor, D.; Sarge, T.; Malhotra, A.; O’Donnell, C.R.; Ritz, R.; Lisbon, A.; Novack, V.; Loring, S.H. Mechanical Ventilation Guided by Esophageal Pressure in Acute Lung Injury. N. Engl. J. Med. 2008, 359, 2095–2104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Writing Group for the Alveolar Recruitment for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Trial (ART) Investigators; Cavalcanti, A.B.; Suzumura, É.A.; Laranjeira, L.N.; Paisani, D.d.M.; Damiani, L.P.; Guimarães, H.P.; Romano, E.R.; Regenga, M.d.M.; Taniguchi, L.N.T.; et al. 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. JAMA 2017, 318, 1335–1345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Li Bassi, G.; Panigada, M.; Ranzani, O.T.; Zanella, A.; Berra, L.; Cressoni, M.; Parrini, V.; Kandil, H.; Salati, G.; Selvaggi, P.; et al. Randomized, Multicenter Trial of Lateral Trendelenburg versus Semirecumbent Body Position for the Prevention of Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia. Intensive Care Med. 2017, 43, 1572–1584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Pozuelo-Carrascosa, D.P.; Cobo-Cuenca, A.I.; Carmona-Torres, J.M.; Laredo-Aguilera, J.A.; Santacruz-Salas, E.; Fernandez-Rodriguez, R. Body Position for Preventing Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia for Critically Ill Patients: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis. J. Intensive Care 2022, 10, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Gattinoni, L.; Chiumello, D.; Caironi, P.; Busana, M.; Romitti, F.; Brazzi, L.; Camporota, L. COVID-19 Pneumonia: Different Respiratory Treatments for Different Phenotypes? Intensive Care Med. 2020, 46, 1099–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Lu, S.; Huang, X.; Liu, R.; Lan, Y.; Lei, Y.; Zeng, F.; Tang, X.; He, H. Comparison of COVID-19 Induced Respiratory Failure and Typical ARDS: Similarities and Differences. Front. Med. 2022, 9, 829771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Sinha, P.; Calfee, C.S.; Beitler, J.R.; Soni, N.; Ho, K.; Matthay, M.A.; Kallet, R.H. Physiologic Analysis and Clinical Performance of the Ventilatory Ratio in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2019, 199, 333–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Hussain, T.; Braithwaite, I.; Hancock, S. Errors and Inaccuracies in Internet Medical Calculator Applications: An Example Using Oxygenation Index. Arch. Dis. Child. 2018, 104, 716–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Jcm 12 03914 g001 550
Figure 1. Study protocol.
Figure 1. Study protocol.
Jcm 12 03914 g001
Jcm 12 03914 g002 550
Figure 2. Overdistension, collapse and driving pressure during PEEP titration performed in supine-flat and semi-recumbent positions. The results of collapse and overdistension during PEEP titration performed in supine-flat position and semi-recumbent position are presented in Panel (A) and Panel (B), respectively. Red dots represent the percentage of collapse, while black dots represent the percentage of overdistension. A two-way ANOVA for repeated measures was performed to evaluate the effect of trunk inclination and PEEP both on collapse and overdistension (p < 0.001 for both). * = p < 0.05 compared to the percentage of overdistension in supine-flat position for the same PEEP value; † = p < 0.05 compared to the percentage of collapse in supine-flat position for the same PEEP value. The values of driving pressure recorded during PEEP titration performed in supine-flat position and semi-recumbent position are presented in Panel (C) and Panel (D), respectively. A two-way ANOVA for repeated measures was performed to evaluate the effect of trunk inclination and PEEP on driving pressure (p < 0.001). ‡ = p < 0.05 compared to the best PEEP in supine-flat position (13 cmH2O). § = p < 0.05 compared to the best PEEP in semi-recumbent position (8 cmH2O).
Figure 2. Overdistension, collapse and driving pressure during PEEP titration performed in supine-flat and semi-recumbent positions. The results of collapse and overdistension during PEEP titration performed in supine-flat position and semi-recumbent position are presented in Panel (A) and Panel (B), respectively. Red dots represent the percentage of collapse, while black dots represent the percentage of overdistension. A two-way ANOVA for repeated measures was performed to evaluate the effect of trunk inclination and PEEP both on collapse and overdistension (p < 0.001 for both). * = p < 0.05 compared to the percentage of overdistension in supine-flat position for the same PEEP value; † = p < 0.05 compared to the percentage of collapse in supine-flat position for the same PEEP value. The values of driving pressure recorded during PEEP titration performed in supine-flat position and semi-recumbent position are presented in Panel (C) and Panel (D), respectively. A two-way ANOVA for repeated measures was performed to evaluate the effect of trunk inclination and PEEP on driving pressure (p < 0.001). ‡ = p < 0.05 compared to the best PEEP in supine-flat position (13 cmH2O). § = p < 0.05 compared to the best PEEP in semi-recumbent position (8 cmH2O).
Jcm 12 03914 g002
Jcm 12 03914 g003 550
Figure 3. “Best” PEEP based on EIT in supine-flat and semi-recumbent position. Individual pairs of “best” PEEP identified through EIT in the two positions are reported. The p-value refers to the paired t-test. Data of 12 patients are reported; however, 2 pairs of patients have the same pair of “best” PEEP values in supine-flat and in semi-recumbent position. As a consequence, data of only 10 patients are visible.
Figure 3. “Best” PEEP based on EIT in supine-flat and semi-recumbent position. Individual pairs of “best” PEEP identified through EIT in the two positions are reported. The p-value refers to the paired t-test. Data of 12 patients are reported; however, 2 pairs of patients have the same pair of “best” PEEP values in supine-flat and in semi-recumbent position. As a consequence, data of only 10 patients are visible.
Jcm 12 03914 g003
Jcm 12 03914 g004 550
Figure 4. Pressure-Impedance variation curves in supine-flat and semi-recumbent position. Panel (A) Pressure-impedance variation curves recorded during the decremental PEEP trial in supine-flat position. Panel (B) Pressure-impedance variation curves recorded during the decremental PEEP trial in semi-recumbent position. In both panels, impedance represents changes in impedance compared to the impedance value measured at PEEP of 6 cmH2O. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Notably, for data points referring to inspiratory pressure, the standard deviation is reported for both the change in lung impedance and plateau pressure. A two-way ANOVA for repeated measures was performed to evaluate the effect of trunk inclination (factor 1) and PEEP (factor 2) on end-inspiratory impedance variation (red dots, vertical standard deviation bars) and end-expiratory impedance variation (black dots) and plateau pressure (red dots, horizontal standard deviation bars) (p < 0.001 for all). * = p < 0.05 compared to end-expiratory impedance variation in supine-flat position for the same PEEP value; † = p < 0.05 compared to plateau pressure in supine-flat position for the same PEEP value; ‡ = p < 0.05 compared to end-inspiratory impedance variation in supine-flat position for the same PEEP value.
Figure 4. Pressure-Impedance variation curves in supine-flat and semi-recumbent position. Panel (A) Pressure-impedance variation curves recorded during the decremental PEEP trial in supine-flat position. Panel (B) Pressure-impedance variation curves recorded during the decremental PEEP trial in semi-recumbent position. In both panels, impedance represents changes in impedance compared to the impedance value measured at PEEP of 6 cmH2O. Data are presented as mean ± standard deviation. Notably, for data points referring to inspiratory pressure, the standard deviation is reported for both the change in lung impedance and plateau pressure. A two-way ANOVA for repeated measures was performed to evaluate the effect of trunk inclination (factor 1) and PEEP (factor 2) on end-inspiratory impedance variation (red dots, vertical standard deviation bars) and end-expiratory impedance variation (black dots) and plateau pressure (red dots, horizontal standard deviation bars) (p < 0.001 for all). * = p < 0.05 compared to end-expiratory impedance variation in supine-flat position for the same PEEP value; † = p < 0.05 compared to plateau pressure in supine-flat position for the same PEEP value; ‡ = p < 0.05 compared to end-inspiratory impedance variation in supine-flat position for the same PEEP value.
Jcm 12 03914 g004
Jcm 12 03914 g005 550
Figure 5. Representation of the implications of a position-related shift of the pressure–volume curve on respiratory mechanics. The theoretical effect on the respiratory system’s pressure–volume curve of the change in trunk inclination in patients on volume-controlled ventilation is represented. On the Y-Axis tidal volume is represented as the distance between two consecutive horizontal dashed lines, which represent end-expiratory (red) and end-inspiratory lung volume (black). Please note that the distance between two consecutive horizontal dashed lines is constant along the Y-axis, since tidal volume is constant in volume-controlled ventilation. Changing patients’ position from supine-flat (continuous line) to semi-recumbent (short-dashed line), will shift the pressure–volume curve leftwards (and vice versa). If PEEP titration is performed in supine-flat position, a specific “best” PEEP value is identified (in the example 13 cmH2O, Point A). If the patient’s trunk inclination is now changed to semi-recumbent, the pressure–volume curve is shifted to the left and, for the same pressure, a higher end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) will be achieved (from A to C). Overdistension might occur, leading to a reduced respiratory system compliance (lower slope of the red-marked part of the pressure-volume curve). On the contrary, if PEEP titration is performed in semi-recumbent position, the identified “best” PEEP will have a lower value (in the example 8 cmH2O, Point B). If the patient’s trunk inclination is now changed to supine-flat (without changing PEEP), the pressure-volume curve is shifted to the right and the patient will have a lower EELV for the same pressure (from B to D). Alveolar collapse might occur, potentially leading to a reduced respiratory system compliance. Finally, if trunk inclination is changed from supine-flat to semi-recumbent position and PEEP is optimized (from A to B), a similar EELV will be maintained, resulting in similar compliances of the respiratory system.
Figure 5. Representation of the implications of a position-related shift of the pressure–volume curve on respiratory mechanics. The theoretical effect on the respiratory system’s pressure–volume curve of the change in trunk inclination in patients on volume-controlled ventilation is represented. On the Y-Axis tidal volume is represented as the distance between two consecutive horizontal dashed lines, which represent end-expiratory (red) and end-inspiratory lung volume (black). Please note that the distance between two consecutive horizontal dashed lines is constant along the Y-axis, since tidal volume is constant in volume-controlled ventilation. Changing patients’ position from supine-flat (continuous line) to semi-recumbent (short-dashed line), will shift the pressure–volume curve leftwards (and vice versa). If PEEP titration is performed in supine-flat position, a specific “best” PEEP value is identified (in the example 13 cmH2O, Point A). If the patient’s trunk inclination is now changed to semi-recumbent, the pressure–volume curve is shifted to the left and, for the same pressure, a higher end-expiratory lung volume (EELV) will be achieved (from A to C). Overdistension might occur, leading to a reduced respiratory system compliance (lower slope of the red-marked part of the pressure-volume curve). On the contrary, if PEEP titration is performed in semi-recumbent position, the identified “best” PEEP will have a lower value (in the example 8 cmH2O, Point B). If the patient’s trunk inclination is now changed to supine-flat (without changing PEEP), the pressure-volume curve is shifted to the right and the patient will have a lower EELV for the same pressure (from B to D). Alveolar collapse might occur, potentially leading to a reduced respiratory system compliance. Finally, if trunk inclination is changed from supine-flat to semi-recumbent position and PEEP is optimized (from A to B), a similar EELV will be maintained, resulting in similar compliances of the respiratory system.
Jcm 12 03914 g005
Table
Table 1. Patients’ characteristics.
Table 1. Patients’ characteristics.
Variablesn = 12
Age, years65 ± 8
Male sex, n (%)10 (83)
BMI, Kg/m228.1 ± 5.1
PBW, Kg68 ± 8
SAPS II36 ± 8
Days from onset of symptoms, n12 ± 5
Days from intubation, n3 ± 2
PaO2:FiO2155 ± 41
ARDS severity, n (%)
Mild2 (17)
Moderate10 (83)
Severe0 (0)
CRS, mL/cmH2O44 ± 15
VT/PBW, mL/kg6.0 ± 0.6
Respiratory rate, n/min21 ± 3
PEEP, cmH2O12 ± 3
FiO20.67 ± 0.15
BMI = body mass index; PBW = predicted body weight; SAPS II = simplified acute physiology score II; CRS = compliance of the respiratory system; PaO2 = partial pressure of oxygen in the arterial blood; PEEP = positive end-expiratory pressure; FiO2 = fraction of inspired oxygen. Reported ventilatory settings refer to the clinical settings on the study day. ARDS severity has been evaluated by using the “Berlin” definition for ARDS [16].
Table
Table 2. Differences between supine-flat and semi-recumbent position after PEEP titration with EIT.
Table 2. Differences between supine-flat and semi-recumbent position after PEEP titration with EIT.
Variables Measured after 30 min at “Best” PEEPEITSupine-Flat (0°)Semi-Recumbent (40°)p
Peak Inspiratory Pressure, cmH2O29 ± 225 ± 3<0.001
Plateau Pressure, cmH2O22 ± 219 ± 3<0.001
Mean Airway Pressure, cmH2O17 ± 112 ± 1<0.001
End–expiratory airway pressure, cmH2O14 ± 29 ± 2<0.001
Driving pressure, cmH2O9 ± 310 ± 40.005
End–inspiratory esophageal pressure, cmH2O16 ± 210 ± 4<0.001
End–expiratory esophageal pressure, cmH2O14 ± 27 ± 4<0.001
PLes, cmH2O7 ± 39 ± 50.07
PLer, cmH2O17 ± 313 ± 4<0.001
Pleural pressure gradient, cmH2O11 ± 34 ± 4<0.001
Driving transpulmonary pressure, cmH2O7 ± 37 ± 40.64
End-expiratory transpulmonary pressure, cmH2O0 ± 32 ± 30.06
CRS, mL/cmH2O48 (38–67)42 (36–68)0.005
CCW, mL/cmH2O253 (166–427)159 (117–197)0.002
CLUNG, mL/cmH2O61 (50–88)64 (45–116)0.19
PaO2:FiO2141 ± 46196 ± 990.02
Venous admixture, %34 ± 1228 ± 120.02
Oxygenation index14 ± 68 ± 4<0.001
PaCO2, mmHg45 ± 447 ± 50.19
Ventilatory ratio1.51 ± 0.271.56 ± 0.290.19
Alveolar dead space, %30 ± 928 ± 110.47
Ventral regional ventilation, %62 ± 860 ± 80.35
Dorsal regional ventilation, %38 ± 940 ± 80.39
Ventral regional compliance, mL/cmH2O25.9 (22.8–38.7)23.3 (16.8–36.5)0.03
Dorsal regional compliance, mL/cmH2O18.1 (9.9–30)18.9 (8.4–22.4)0.49
Global Inhomogeneity index53 ± 1146 ± 100.008
ΔEELV, mL−153 ± 16227 ± 2030.007
Ventral region, mL−61 ± 94−30 ± 1270.39
Dorsal region, mL−91 ± 8057 ± 89<0.001
PLes  =  end-inspiratory transpulmonary pressure calculated from esophageal pressure [27]; PLer  =  end-inspiratory transpulmonary pressure calculated from elastance ratio [27]; pleural pressure gradient = PLer − Ples [27]; CRS = respiratory system compliance; CCW = chest wall compliance; CLUNG = lung compliance; FiO2 = fraction of inspired oxygen; PaO2 = partial pressure of oxygen in the arterial blood; PaCO2 = partial pressure of carbon dioxide in the arterial blood; EIT = electrical impedance tomography; ∆EELV = change in end-expiratory lung volume (30 min–0 min). EIT data refer to 11 patients, as in 1 patient; for technical reasons, EIT parameters were not recorded.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Marrazzo, F.; Spina, S.; Zadek, F.; Forlini, C.; Bassi, G.; Giudici, R.; Bellani, G.; Fumagalli, R.; Langer, T. PEEP Titration Is Markedly Affected by Trunk Inclination in Mechanically Ventilated Patients with COVID-19 ARDS: A Physiologic, Cross-Over Study. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 3914. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12123914

AMA Style

Marrazzo F, Spina S, Zadek F, Forlini C, Bassi G, Giudici R, Bellani G, Fumagalli R, Langer T. PEEP Titration Is Markedly Affected by Trunk Inclination in Mechanically Ventilated Patients with COVID-19 ARDS: A Physiologic, Cross-Over Study. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2023; 12(12):3914. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12123914

Chicago/Turabian Style

Marrazzo, Francesco, Stefano Spina, Francesco Zadek, Clarissa Forlini, Gabriele Bassi, Riccardo Giudici, Giacomo Bellani, Roberto Fumagalli, and Thomas Langer. 2023. "PEEP Titration Is Markedly Affected by Trunk Inclination in Mechanically Ventilated Patients with COVID-19 ARDS: A Physiologic, Cross-Over Study" Journal of Clinical Medicine 12, no. 12: 3914. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm12123914

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop