Early stages of the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) are associated with silent hypoxia and poor oxygenation despite relatively minor parenchymal involvement. Although speculated that such paradoxical findings may be explained by impaired hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction in infected lung regions, no studies have determined whether such extreme degrees of perfusion redistribution are physiologically plausible, and increasing attention is directed towards thrombotic microembolism as the underlying cause of hypoxemia. Herein, a mathematical model demonstrates that the large amount of pulmonary venous admixture observed in patients with early COVID-19 can be reasonably explained by a combination of pulmonary embolism, ventilation-perfusion mismatching in the noninjured lung, and normal perfusion of the relatively small fraction of injured lung. Although underlying perfusion heterogeneity exacerbates existing shunt and ventilation-perfusion mismatch in the model, the reported hypoxemia severity in early COVID-19 patients is not replicated without either extensive perfusion defects, severe ventilation-perfusion mismatch, or hyperperfusion of nonoxygenated regions.

No abstract

Background There is a paucity of data concerning the optimal ventilator management in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia; particularly, the optimal levels of positive-end expiratory pressure (PEEP) are unknown. We aimed to investigate the effects of two levels of PEEP on alveolar recruitment in critically ill patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia. Methods A single-center cohort study was conducted in a 39-bed intensive care unit at a university-affiliated hospital in Genoa, Italy. Chest computed tomography (CT) was performed to quantify aeration at 8 and 16 cmH2O PEEP. The primary endpoint was the amount of alveolar recruitment, defined as the change in the non-aerated compartment at the two PEEP levels on CT scan. Results Forty-two patients were included in this analysis. Alveolar recruitment was median [interquartile range] 2.7 [0.7–4.5] % of lung weight and was not associated with excess lung weight, PaO2/FiO2 ratio, respiratory system compliance, inflammatory and thrombophilia markers. Patients in the upper quartile of recruitment (recruiters), compared to non-recruiters, had comparable clinical characteristics, lung weight and gas volume. Alveolar recruitment was not different in patients with lower versus higher respiratory system compliance. In a subgroup of 20 patients with available gas exchange data, increasing PEEP decreased respiratory system compliance (median difference, MD − 9 ml/cmH2O, 95% CI from − 12 to − 6 ml/cmH2O, p < 0.001) and the ventilatory ratio (MD − 0.1, 95% CI from − 0.3 to − 0.1, p = 0.003), increased PaO2 with FiO2 = 0.5 (MD 24 mmHg, 95% CI from 12 to 51 mmHg, p < 0.001), but did not change PaO2 with FiO2 = 1.0 (MD 7 mmHg, 95% CI from − 12 to 49 mmHg, p = 0.313). Moreover, alveolar recruitment was not correlated with improvement of oxygenation or venous admixture. Conclusions In patients with severe COVID-19 pneumonia, higher PEEP resulted in limited alveolar recruitment. These findings suggest limiting PEEP strictly to the values necessary to maintain oxygenation, thus avoiding the use of higher PEEP levels.

No abstract