Skip to main content
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine logoLink to American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
letter
. 2020 Aug 15;202(4):618–619. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202004-1106LE

Heterogeneity of Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in COVID-19: “Typical” or Not?

Jason H Maley 1,*, Tilo Winkler 1, C Corey Hardin 1
PMCID: PMC7427401  PMID: 32579019

To the Editor:

We read “COVID-19 Does Not Lead to a ‘Typical’ Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome” by Gattinoni and colleagues with great interest (1). In this letter, the authors describe 16 patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19) who have a mean respiratory system compliance of 50.2 ± 14.3 ml/cm H2O and marked shunt physiology. The authors suggest that these patients are representative of the primary pattern of physiologic derangements among their patients and those of colleagues with whom they’ve conferred. They discourage the use of prone positioning when compliance is “relatively high,” similar to their recommendations in a recent article in which they additionally support ventilation with Vt up to 9 ml/kg in select patients with COVID-19 and relatively preserved compliance (2). We appreciate the authors’ clinical observations and their expertise; however, we have several concerns with these two recommendations, which diverge from the best established evidence for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

First, the authors’ reported cohort is small and heterogeneous, in keeping with the well-established heterogeneity of ARDS. Many of their patients have similar compliance to those enrolled in clinical trials for ARDS therapies (3). For reference, patients enrolled in the PROSEVA (Prone Positioning in Severe ARDS) trial had a mean respiratory system compliance of 35 ml/cm H2O (SD, 15) at the time of enrollment (3). Interestingly, a recent report of patients with COVID-19 from Seattle, Washington, described median respiratory system compliance of 29 ml/cm H2O (interquartile range, 25–36) (4). That is to say, 75% of the patients in the Seattle cohort had lung compliance of 36 ml/cm H2O or less. The discrepancy between the compliance measurements in the cohorts from Gattinoni and colleagues and Seattle highlights the difficulty in interpreting observations of small cohorts in a disease with well-established marked heterogeneity such as ARDS (5).

Second, respiratory system compliance was not used to determine eligibility for prone positioning in past trials. The PROSEVA trial enrolled severely hypoxemic patients, meeting the Berlin criteria for ARDS, who failed to stabilize early in the course of management (3). Though the authors may not support prone ventilation in patients with “relatively high compliance,” exclusion of patients by these criteria would be inconsistent with existing evidence. Also, the effects of prone position on gas exchange are not limited to the shunt in fully atelectatic regions but instead include changes in edematous regions. Discouraging prone position based on a perception of limited recruitability risks foregoing a therapy with mortality benefit (3).

Finally, progression to a classic ARDS with dense posterior consolidation and elevated critical opening pressures (recruitability) is well described after mechanical ventilation, even in patients with initially preserved mechanics and without established lung injury (6). Patients with COVID-19–associated respiratory failure have multifocal pneumonia even in milder stages, and these regions are expected to have different elastic properties than unaffected tissue, causing regional stress and strain concentrations with potential to progress to severe ARDS (2, 4). Lung-protective strategies, including low Vt and prone positioning, exist to prevent this progression of lung injury.

We fully agree with the authors’ final sentiment that patience and gentle ventilation are the best therapies for COVID-19 with associated ARDS. Furthermore, the rapid search for new insights into COVID-19 is appropriate and commendable. However, adopting the paradigm that COVID-19 is inconsistent with ARDS, with resulting specific treatment recommendations, risks discouraging compliance with our best evidence-based standards of care. Evidence from randomized controlled trials suggests that prone positioning and low Vt ventilation are the precise strategies for gentle ventilation that patients with ARDS, “typical” or not, should receive.

Supplementary Material

Supplements
Author disclosures

Footnotes

Author Contributions: All authors contributed equally to the conception, drafting, and final editing of this manuscript.

Originally Published in Press as DOI: 10.1164/rccm.202004-1106LE on June 24, 2020

Author disclosures are available with the text of this letter at www.atsjournals.org.

References

  • 1.Gattinoni L, Coppola S, Cressoni M, Busana M, Rossi S, Chiumello D. COVID-19 does not lead to a “typical” acute respiratory distress syndrome [letter] Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;201:1299–1300. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202003-0817LE. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Gattinoni L, Chiumello D, Caironi P, Busana M, Romitti F, Brazzi L, et al. COVID-19 pneumonia: different respiratory treatments for different phenotypes? Intensive Care Med. 2020;46:1099–1102. doi: 10.1007/s00134-020-06033-2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Guérin C, Reignier J, Richard JC, Beuret P, Gacouin A, Boulain T, et al. PROSEVA Study Group. Prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:2159–2168. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1214103. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Bhatraju PK, Ghassemieh BJ, Nichols M, Kim R, Jerome KR, Nalla AK, et al. Covid-19 in critically ill patients in the Seattle region - case series. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:2012–2022. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa2004500. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Thille AW, Esteban A, Fernández-Segoviano P, Rodriguez JM, Aramburu JA, Peñuelas O, et al. Comparison of the Berlin definition for acute respiratory distress syndrome with autopsy. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2013;187:761–767. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201211-1981OC. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Gajic O, Dara SI, Mendez JL, Adesanya AO, Festic E, Caples SM, et al. Ventilator-associated lung injury in patients without acute lung injury at the onset of mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:1817–1824. doi: 10.1097/01.ccm.0000133019.52531.30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplements
Author disclosures

Articles from American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine are provided here courtesy of American Thoracic Society

RESOURCES