Commentary: Barotrauma in critically ill patients with COVID-19: miles to go to unwrap the pathophysiology.

IF 1.6 Q2 ANESTHESIOLOGY Anaesthesiology intensive therapy Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.5114/ait.2023.126223
Dipasri Bhattacharya, Mohanchandra Mandal, Antonio Esquinas
{"title":"Commentary: Barotrauma in critically ill patients with COVID-19: miles to go to unwrap the pathophysiology.","authors":"Dipasri Bhattacharya, Mohanchandra Mandal, Antonio Esquinas","doi":"10.5114/ait.2023.126223","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dear Editor, We read with great interest the retrospective case-control study of Venkateswaran et al. [1]. However, we consider that there are certain points that need further clarification, and that the provision of more data in the methodology would make it even more interesting. Firstly, the authors did not mention what flow was used during use of a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for their patients. Lower flow rates (35–40 L min-1) may be advantageous for better patient comfort and initial adaptation, while a higher flow rate (60 L min-1) can provide a faster relief of dyspnoea. One might start with 60 L min-1 and individualise the flow to the highest value tolerated by the patient [2]. The decrease of transoesophageal pressure fluctuations can be used as a measure of patient effort and work of breathing. HFNC may be a fruitful therapy when personalised bedside titration to optimum flow is ensured. Secondly, we are curious to know about the level of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) (the PEEP maximum) used during invasive mechanical ventilation, and whether they utilised any lung-protective strategy and ventilator modes in their cases. Low tidal volume lung protective ventilation remains the cornerstone of supportive therapy in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), thereby yielding a considerable improvement in outcomes [3]. Higher maximum PEEP has been observed among patients who suffered barotrauma compared with non-barotrauma patients [4]. Finally, in the present study, the authors relied on clinical examination findings and utilised chest radiography, computed tomography, ultrasonography, or a combination thereof to diagnose pneumothorax. It would be interesting to know the details of how many patients were diagnosed using which diagnostic modality. In any study assessing barotrauma, a plausible cause of reported higher incidence of pneumothorax could be the broader use of chest CT with its higher sensitivity to detect extra-alveolar gas collections [5].","PeriodicalId":7750,"journal":{"name":"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/c9/d5/AIT-55-50435.PMC10156551.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Anaesthesiology intensive therapy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5114/ait.2023.126223","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ANESTHESIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Dear Editor, We read with great interest the retrospective case-control study of Venkateswaran et al. [1]. However, we consider that there are certain points that need further clarification, and that the provision of more data in the methodology would make it even more interesting. Firstly, the authors did not mention what flow was used during use of a high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) for their patients. Lower flow rates (35–40 L min-1) may be advantageous for better patient comfort and initial adaptation, while a higher flow rate (60 L min-1) can provide a faster relief of dyspnoea. One might start with 60 L min-1 and individualise the flow to the highest value tolerated by the patient [2]. The decrease of transoesophageal pressure fluctuations can be used as a measure of patient effort and work of breathing. HFNC may be a fruitful therapy when personalised bedside titration to optimum flow is ensured. Secondly, we are curious to know about the level of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) (the PEEP maximum) used during invasive mechanical ventilation, and whether they utilised any lung-protective strategy and ventilator modes in their cases. Low tidal volume lung protective ventilation remains the cornerstone of supportive therapy in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), thereby yielding a considerable improvement in outcomes [3]. Higher maximum PEEP has been observed among patients who suffered barotrauma compared with non-barotrauma patients [4]. Finally, in the present study, the authors relied on clinical examination findings and utilised chest radiography, computed tomography, ultrasonography, or a combination thereof to diagnose pneumothorax. It would be interesting to know the details of how many patients were diagnosed using which diagnostic modality. In any study assessing barotrauma, a plausible cause of reported higher incidence of pneumothorax could be the broader use of chest CT with its higher sensitivity to detect extra-alveolar gas collections [5].
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评论:COVID-19危重患者的气压创伤:要解开病理生理学还有很长的路要走。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
5.90%
发文量
48
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊最新文献
A randomised controlled trial to compare blind intubation success through LMA Blockbuster® and I-Gel® LMA. Can't intubate, can't oxygenate? What is the preferred surgical strategy? A retrospective analysis. Measures of preoperative anxiety: Part two. Navigating through the paradox of choice: prediction of outcome in aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Nutritional management in critically ill patients with COVID-19: a retrospective multicentre study.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1