Electrical impedance tomography for titration of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute respiratory distress syndrome patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Abstract

Abstract Background Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is one of most common comorbidities in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). There are few specific studies on the appropriate ventilation strategy for patients with ARDS comorbid with COPD, especially regarding on positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration. Methods To compare the respiratory mechanics in mechanical ventilated ARDS patients with or without COPD and to determine whether titration of PEEP based on electrical impedance tomography (EIT) is superior to the ARDSnet protocol. This is a single center, perspective, repeated measure study. ARDS patients requiring mechanical ventilation who were admitted to the intensive care unit between August 2017 and December 2020 were included. ARDS patients were divided according to whether they had COPD into a COPD group and a non-COPD group. Respiratory mechanics, gas exchange, and hemodynamics during ventilation were compared between the groups according to whether the PEEP level was titrated by EIT or the ARDSnet protocol. Results A total of twenty-seven ARDS patients including 14 comorbid with and 13 without COPD who met the study eligibility criteria were recruited. The PEEP levels titrated by EIT and the ARDSnet protocol were lower in the COPD group than in the non-COPD group (6.93 ± 1.69 cm H2O vs. 12.15 ± 2.40 cm H2O, P < 0.001 and 10.43 ± 1.20 cm H2O vs. 14.0 ± 3.0 cm H2O, P < 0.001, respectively). In the COPD group, the PEEP level titrated by EIT was lower than that titrated by the ARDSnet protocol (6.93 ± 1.69 cm H2O vs. 10.43 ± 1.20 cm H2O, P < 0.001), as was the global inhomogeneity (GI) index (0.397 ± 0.040 vs. 0.446 ± 0.052, P = 0.001), plateau airway pressure (16.50 ± 4.35 cm H2O vs. 20.93 ± 5.37 cm H2O, P = 0.001), dead space ventilation ratio (48.29 ± 6.78% vs. 55.14 ± 8.85%, P < 0.001), ventilation ratio (1.63 ± 0.33 vs. 1.87 ± 0.33, P < 0.001), and mechanical power (13.92 ± 2.18 J/min vs. 15.87 ± 2.53 J/min, P < 0.001). The cardiac index was higher when PEEP was treated by EIT than when it was titrated by the ARDSnet protocol (3.41 ± 0.50 L/min/m2 vs. 3.02 ± 0.43 L/min/m2, P < 0.001), as was oxygen delivery (466.40 ± 71.08 mL/min/m2 vs. 411.10 ± 69.71 mL/min/m2, P = 0.001). Conclusion Titrated PEEP levels were lower in patients with ARDS with COPD than in ARDS patients without COPD. In ARDS patient comorbid with COPD, application of PEEP titrated by EIT was lower than those titrated by the ARDSnet protocol, which contributed to improvements in the ventilation ratio, mechanical energy, cardiac index, and oxygen delivery with less of an adverse impact on hemodynamics.