Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) has undergone 30 years of development. Functional chest examinations with this technology are considered clinically relevant, especially for monitoring regional lung ventilation in mechanically ventilated patients and for regional pulmonary function testing in patients with chronic lung diseases. As EIT becomes an established medical technology, it requires consensus examination, nomenclature, data analysis and interpretation schemes. Such consensus is needed to compare, understand and reproduce study findings from and among different research groups, to enable large clinical trials and, ultimately, routine clinical use. Recommendations of how EIT findings can be applied to generate diagnoses and impact clinical decision-making and therapy planning are required. This consensus paper was prepared by an international working group, collaborating on the clinical promotion of EIT called TRanslational EIT developmeNt stuDy group. It addresses the stated needs by providing (1) a new classification of core processes involved in chest EIT examinations and data analysis, (2) focus on clinical applications with structured reviews and outlooks (separately for adult and neonatal/paediatric patients), (3) a structured framework to categorise and understand the relationships among analysis approaches and their clinical roles, (4) consensus, unified terminology with clinical user-friendly definitions and explanations, (5) a review of all major work in thoracic EIT and (6) recommendations for future development (193 pages of online supplements systematically linked with the chief sections of the main document). We expect this information to be useful for clinicians and researchers working with EIT, as well as for industry producers of this technology.

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 to values from non-COVID-19 ARDS patients 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.