Patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) are described as exhibiting oxygen levels incompatible with life without dyspnea. The pairing-dubbed happy hypoxia but more precisely termed silent hypoxemia-is especially bewildering to physicians and is considered as defying basic biology. This combination has attracted extensive coverage in media but has not been discussed in medical journals. It is possible that coronavirus has an idiosyncratic action on receptors involved in chemosensitivity to oxygen, but well-established pathophysiological mechanisms can account for most, if not all, cases of silent hypoxemia. These mechanisms include the way dyspnea and the respiratory centers respond to low levels of oxygen, the way the prevailing carbon dioxide tension (Pa CO 2) blunts the brain's response to hypoxia, effects of disease and age on control of breathing, inaccuracy of pulse oximetry at low oxygen saturations, and temperature-induced shifts in the oxygen dissociation curve. Without knowledge of these mechanisms, physicians caring for patients with hypoxemia free of dyspnea are operating in the dark, placing vulnerable patients with COVID-19 at considerable risk. In conclusion, features of COVID-19 that physicians find baffling become less strange when viewed in light of long-established principles of respiratory physiology; an understanding of these mechanisms will enhance patient care if the much-anticipated second wave emerges.

This report summarizes current physiological and technical knowledge on esophageal pressure (Pes) measurements in patients receiving mechanical ventilation. The respiratory changes in Pes are representative of changes in pleural pressure. The difference between airway pressure (Paw) and Pes is a valid estimate of transpulmonary pressure. Pes helps determine what fraction of Paw is applied to overcome lung and chest wall elastance. Pes is usually measured via a catheter with an air-filled thin-walled latex balloon inserted nasally or orally. To validate Pes measurement, a dynamic occlusion test measures the ratio of change in Pes to change in Paw during inspiratory efforts against a closed airway. A ratio close to unity indicates that the system provides a valid measurement. Provided transpulmonary pressure is the lung-distending pressure, and that chest wall elastance may vary among individuals, a physiologically based ventilator strategy should take the transpulmonary pressure into account. For monitoring purposes, clinicians rely mostly on Paw and flow waveforms. However, these measurements may mask profound patient-ventilator asynchrony and do not allow respiratory muscle effort assessment. Pes also permits the measurement of transmural vascular pressures during both passive and active breathing. Pes measurements have enhanced our understanding of the pathophysiology of acute lung injury, patient-ventilator interaction, and weaning failure. The use of Pes for positive end-expiratory pressure titration may help improve oxygenation and compliance. Pes measurements make it feasible to individualize the level of muscle effort during mechanical ventilation and weaning. The time is now right to apply the knowledge obtained with Pes to improve the management of critically ill and ventilator-dependent patients.

Pes monitoring provides unique bedside measures for a better understanding of the pathophysiology of acute respiratory failure patients. Including Pes monitoring in the intensivist's clinical armamentarium may enhance treatment to improve clinical outcomes.