Navigation auf zora.uzh.ch

Search ZORA

ZORA (Zurich Open Repository and Archive)

Closed-Loop Versus Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in COVID-19 ARDS

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Lung-protective ventilation is key in bridging patients suffering from COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to recovery. However, resource and personnel limitations during pandemics complicate the implementation of lung-protective protocols. Automated ventilation modes may prove decisive in these settings enabling higher degrees of lung-protective ventilation than conventional modes.
METHOD: Prospective study at a Swiss university hospital. Critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients were allocated, by study-blinded coordinating staff, to either closed-loop or conventional mechanical ventilation, based on mechanical ventilator availability. Primary outcome was the overall achieved percentage of lung-protective ventilation in closed-loop versus conventional mechanical ventilation, assessed minute-by-minute, during the initial 7 days and overall mechanical ventilation time. Lung-protective ventilation was defined as the combined target of tidal volume <8 ml per kg of ideal body weight, dynamic driving pressure <15 cmH$_{2}$O, peak pressure <30 cmH$_{2}$O, peripheral oxygen saturation ≥88% and dynamic mechanical power <17 J/min.
RESULTS: Forty COVID-19 ARDS patients, accounting for 1,048,630 minutes (728 days) of cumulative mechanical ventilation, allocated to either closed-loop (n = 23) or conventional ventilation (n = 17), presenting with a median paO$_{2}$/ FiO$_{2}$ ratio of 92 [72-147] mmHg and a static compliance of 18 [11-25] ml/cmH$_{2}$O, were mechanically ventilated for 11 [4-25] days and had a 28-day mortality rate of 20%. During the initial 7 days of mechanical ventilation, patients in the closed-loop group were ventilated lung-protectively for 65% of the time versus 38% in the conventional group (Odds Ratio, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.76-1.82; P < 0.001) and for 45% versus 33% of overall mechanical ventilation time (Odds Ratio, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.21-1.23; P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Among critically ill, mechanically ventilated COVID-19 ARDS patients during an early highpoint of the pandemic, mechanical ventilation using a closed-loop mode was associated with a higher degree of lung-protective ventilation than was conventional mechanical ventilation.

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Institute of Intensive Care Medicine
04 Faculty of Medicine > University Hospital Zurich > Clinic for Infectious Diseases
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Scopus Subject Areas:Health Sciences > Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
Language:English
Date:1 October 2021
Deposited On:29 Jun 2021 10:11
Last Modified:25 Dec 2024 02:38
Publisher:Sage Publications
ISSN:0885-0666
OA Status:Hybrid
Free access at:PubMed ID. An embargo period may apply.
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1177/08850666211024139
PubMed ID:34098803
Download PDF  'Closed-Loop Versus Conventional Mechanical Ventilation in COVID-19 ARDS'.
Preview
  • Content: Published Version
  • Language: English
  • Licence: Creative Commons: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

Metadata Export

Statistics

Citations

Dimensions.ai Metrics
12 citations in Web of Science®
15 citations in Scopus®
Google Scholar™

Altmetrics

Downloads

61 downloads since deposited on 29 Jun 2021
12 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Authors, Affiliations, Collaborations

Similar Publications