Next Article in Journal
Complex Regional Pain Syndrome after Distal Radius Fracture—Case Report and Mini Literature Review
Next Article in Special Issue
The Respiratory Mechanics of COVID-19 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome—Lessons Learned?
Previous Article in Journal
Pulmonary Vein Isolation Followed by Biatrial Ablation of Rotational Activity in Patients with Persistent Atrial Fibrillation: Results of the Cryo-Vest Study
Previous Article in Special Issue
PEEP Titration Is Markedly Affected by Trunk Inclination in Mechanically Ventilated Patients with COVID-19 ARDS: A Physiologic, Cross-Over Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 13
Issue 4
10.3390/jcm13041120
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

A High Respiratory Drive Is Associated with Weaning Failure in Patients with COVID-19-Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: The Role of the Electrical Activity of the Diaphragm

by
Stefano Muttini
1,†,
Jacopo Jona Falco
1,†,
Ilmari Cuevas Cairo
2 and
Michele Umbrello
3,*
1
Neuroscience Intensive Care Unit, San Carlo Borromeo Hospital, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, 20151 Milano, Italy
2
Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, San Carlo Borromeo Hospital, ASST Santi Paolo e Carlo, 20151 Milano, Italy
3
Department of Intensive care and Anaesthesia, Ospedale Civile di Legnano, ASST Ovest Milanese, 20025 Legnano, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(4), 1120; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13041120
Submission received: 21 December 2023 / Revised: 1 February 2024 / Accepted: 14 February 2024 / Published: 16 February 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Respiratory Support in ICU: The COVID-19 Lessons)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Mechanical ventilation is the main supportive treatment of severe cases of COVID-19-associated ARDS (C-ARDS). Weaning failure is common and associated with worse outcomes. We investigated the role of respiratory drive, assessed by monitoring the electrical activity of the diaphragm (EAdi), as a predictor of weaning failure. Methods: Consecutive, mechanically ventilated patients admitted to the ICU for C-ARDS with difficult weaning were enrolled. Blood gas, ventilator, and respiratory mechanic parameters, as well as EAdi, were recorded at the time of placement of EAdi catheter, and then after 1, 2, 3, 7, and 10 days, and compared between patients with weaning success and weaning failure. Results: Twenty patients were enrolled: age 66 (60–69); 85% males; PaO2/FiO2 at admission 148 (126–177) mmHg. Thirteen subjects (65%) were classified as having a successful weaning. A younger age (OR(95%CI): 0.02 (0.01–0.11) per year), a higher PaO2/FiO2 ratio (OR(95%CI): 1.10 (1.01–1.21) per mmHg), and a lower EAdi (OR(95%CI): 0.16 (0.08–0.34) per μV) were associated with weaning success. Conclusion: In critically ill patients with moderate–severe C-ARDS and difficult weaning from mechanical ventilation, a successful weaning was associated with a lower age, a higher oxygenation, and a lower respiratory drive, as assessed at the bedside via EAdi monitoring.

1. Introduction

While most people with COVID-19 experience mild symptoms, around 15% may develop a severe condition known as COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome (C-ARDS). This is the primary reason for ICU admission and is linked to a poor outcome [1]. As with “classic” ARDS, the cornerstone of the treatment of C-ARDS lies in the early identification and management of the underlying cause, such as infection recognition and appropriate antimicrobial treatment [2]. This etiological therapy often needs to be associated with supportive treatments, which mainly consist of invasive and non-invasive mechanical ventilation [3,4] to ensure adequate gas exchange until acute lung disease is overcome [5]. However, mechanical ventilation is also associated with potential complications, such as ventilator-induced lung injury, ventilator-induced diaphragm dysfunction, and ventilation-associated pneumonia [6,7,8]. As prolonging the duration of ventilatory care places patients at risk of developing ventilation-related complications, the correct identification of the time window within which to begin the weaning phase from mechanical ventilation seems vital, as is the recognition of patients who will not yet benefit from weaning.
In the ICU setting, weaning success is commonly defined as the ability to maintain spontaneous breathing in the absence of ventilatory support for at least 48 h. Conversely, weaning failure consists of the failure of spontaneous breathing trial (SBT), resumption of ventilatory support following successful extubation, or death within 48 h following extubation [9,10]. Patients who fail initial weaning and require at least three SBTs or at least 7 days from the first SBT to successful weaning are recognized as patients with difficult weaning [10]. Previous studies in unselected ICU patients showed that up to 26% of patients have difficult weaning, and this was associated with increased mortality [11]; recent data on C-ARDS confirmed these findings [12].
Since the inspiratory muscles are supposed to uptake the bulk of the respiratory effort after discontinuation of mechanical ventilation, monitoring of the respiratory drive, i.e., the intensity of the output of the respiratory centers, which determines the mechanical output of the respiratory muscles, might be a useful tool to assess readiness for weaning [13]. The electrical activity of the diaphragm (EAdi) is the spatial and temporal sum of the electrical activities of all the motor units of the diaphragm [14]. EAdi is measured via transesophageal diaphragmatic electromyography by the EAdi tube, a peculiar nasogastric tube with the traditional lumen for enteral feeding and eight pairs of bipolar electrodes placed at the distal end [15,16]. EAdi is considered the best proxy for the activity of neural respiratory centers (i.e., the respiratory drive) currently available in clinical practice [17]. As long as the phrenic nerve and neuroventilatory coupling are intact, and the diaphragm is used as the main inspiratory muscle, the EAdi inspiratory peak was shown to correspond with respiratory drive in both healthy and ARDS subjects [18,19,20].
The aim of the current research is to evaluate the correlation between respiratory drive, as assessed by EAdi, and weaning success in a cohort of critically ill, mechanically ventilated patients with C-ARDS.

2. Materials and Methods

The study was approved by the local Ethics committee (Comitato Etico Interaziendale Milano Area 1, registration 2020/ST/207, approved date: 9th September, 2020) and written informed consent was obtained according to Italian regulations. Consecutive patients, admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) of the San Carlo Borromeo Hospital in Milan, Italy, between 8 March 2020 and 1 March 2022, were retrospectively identified.
Inclusion criteria were as follows: age > 18 years, diagnosis of C-ARDS according to clinical and radiological criteria in the Berlin Definition [21] in the presence of a SARS-CoV-2 infection, as confirmed by an RT-PCR on nasopharyngeal swab [22], absence of intravenous sedation with a level of sedation on the Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale of 0 or -1, difficult weaning from mechanical ventilation, and the presence of EAdi monitoring via EAdi nasogastric tube (by Servo-i or Servo-u mechanical ventilators equipped for EAdi monitoring, Maquet Critical Care, Solna, Sweden) with at least 6 recordings of EAdi values on consecutive days, regardless of ventilation mode. Difficult weaning was defined as patients who failed initial weaning and required at least 3 SBTs or at least 7 days from the first SBT to successful weaning [9].
All patients were deeply sedated and mechanically ventilated at ICU admission. The clinical management of patients was standardized according to local and regional suggestion [23,24]. The principle of ventilation strategy was early systematic application of the lung protective ventilatory strategy: low tidal volume; medium–high levels of PEEP; prone position if the PaO2/FiO2 ratio was <150 mmHg. Weaning was considered when a patient maintained a PaO2/FiO2 >200 mmHg during assisted ventilation, with an adequate thoraco-abdominal coordination, and performed with inspiratory pressure augmentation, as suggested [25].
Personal, demographic, anthropometric, medical history, and laboratory data were collected at ICU admission (e.g., age, gender, height, predicted and actual body weight, body-mass index, C-reactive protein, SAPS II score). Additional values were collected at the time of maximum clinical severity, including blood gas and ventilatory and respiratory mechanic parameters (PaO2/FiO2 ratio; end-tidal CO2; the level of positive end-expiratory pressure; airway driving pressure [26]; the static compliance of the respiratory system, and alveolar dead-space [27]). These additional parameters were recorded again in association with EAdipeak, starting from the time of the placement of the EAdi monitoring tube, which occurred, on average, after 17 days (IQR 9–23 days) of mechanical ventilation, and was considered as time zero (T0), and then after 1, 2, 3, 7, and 10 days.
To assess the correlation between EAdi and weaning success, the study population was divided into weaning success and weaning failure cohorts, compared in terms of general baseline characteristics at ICU admission (i.e., demographic, anamnestic, biochemical, and clinical characteristics), blood gas and ventilatory and respiratory mechanics parameters, both at admission and at the time of maximum severity, as well as at time 0 (EAdi tube placement) and after 1, 2, 3, 7, and 10 days.

Statistical Analysis

Categorical variables were expressed as absolute frequency (n) and percentage (%), while continuous variables were reported as median and interquartile range (IQR), as appropriate. The following statistical tests were used: Fisher’s exact test, to compare categorical variables; Student’s t test, or its nonparametric analogue; two-sample Wilcoxon rank-sum test, to compare continuous variables depending on the distribution of the analyzed variables; one-way ANOVA for repeated measures, to compare data from different variables measured at different time steps; two-way ANOVA for repeated measures, to compare the trend of different variables measured at different time steps between the two cohorts, considering success or failure in weaning (inter-subject variable) and time (intra-subject variable) as independent categorical variables. The interaction effect between success or failure in weaning and time (combined effect of time and group) was also reported in the results, and the statistical significance of intra-subject factors was corrected using the Greenhouse–Geisser method. In cases where the interaction between variables was statistically significant, a multiple-interaction comparison was conducted according to Siegel–Tukey test. In this way, for each variable, three different p-values are obtained:
  • pweaning: group effect, to compare the two cohorts.
  • pday: time effect, to compare the trend over the days.
  • pweaning#day: combined effect, showing the interaction of the group effect with the time effect.
To evaluate the clinical–physiological characteristics and ventilatory and respiratory mechanics parameters associated with success or failure in weaning, a logistic regression analysis was performed. To deal with the longitudinal structure of the data (patients with repeated measurements over time), an analysis was performed with a random-effect logit model for repeated measures based on each patient. The model included the effect of time as a within-subject factor, with patients fitted randomly to correct for differences in the size of the treatment effect. Odds ratios (ORs), along with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were computed via maximum likelihood for each variable. The factors associated with success or failure in weaning were first identified using univariate logistic regression, and were therefore included in a multiple logistic regression model. A stepwise manual procedure was used to define the final model, in which variables with p < 0.05 were retained. Calibration of the model was assessed by the Hosmer–Lemeshow test and discrimination ability by analysis of the area under curve (AUC) of the receiver-operating characteristics (ROC) curve.
For all the comparisons, adjusted, two-tailed P-values of less than 0.05 (p < 0.05) were considered statistically significant. The analysis was performed using STATA 14.0 statistical software (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, USA).

3. Results

Twenty patients were included in the current investigation. Figure 1 shows the flow chart for patient selection.
Table 1 summarizes the demographic and clinical characteristics of included subjects as well as the comparison between patients with weaning success (13, 65%) and weaning failure (7, 35%).
The only baseline variables that were shown to be statistically different between the two cohorts were age (with patients in the weaning failure group being, on average, older than those in the weaning success group) and SAPS II score (with subjects in the weaning failure group having a higher severity at ICU admission).
Table 2 reports the course of gas exchange, ventilatory and respiratory mechanics parameters in the different phases of the study in patients with weaning success or weaning failure. In summary, FiO2 is higher and shows an increasing trend over time in the weaning failure group, whereas it is lower and has a descending course in the weaning success group; respiratory rate shows a tendency to increase over time in the weaning failure group. As for gas exchange, subjects in the weaning failure group have significantly lower oxygenation (pweaning < 0.0001) and higher carbon dioxide (pweaning = 0.0001), despite similar minute ventilation (pweaning = 0.6522), which is explained by the higher alveolar dead space (pweaning = 0.0001).
Figure 2 shows the time course of the electrical activity of the diaphragm in the two groups. Patients in the weaning failure group had, on average, higher values of EAdi (pweaning < 0.0001), with an upward trend over time (pday = 0.0075), as compared with patients in the weaning success group, who had lower values which remained stable over time.
The figure shows the trend over time of the electrical activity of the diaphragm (EAdi) in patients with weaning success (white circles) or weaning failure (black circles). The comparison was performed with two-way ANOVA (see the Methods section for details). pweaning < 0.0001; pday = 0.0075; pweaning#day = 0.0800.
In the multivariable logistic regression model, variables independently associated with weaning success were as follows: age (OR = 0.02 [95%CI: 0.01–0.11]), where for each additional year of age, the odds of weaning success are reduced by 98%; PaO2/FiO2 (OR = 1.10 [95%CI: 1.01–1.21]), i.e., for each additional point of PaO2/FiO2 ratio, the odds of weaning success increase by 10%; and EAdi (OR = 0.16 [95%CI: 0.08–0.34]), that is, for each additional microvolt of EAdi, the odds of weaning success are reduced by 84%. The final model had an area under the ROC curve of 0.943 [IQR 0.902–0.985] and the Hosmer–Lemeshow test resulted in p = 0.9367. Table 3 reports the odds ratios, determined via univariable and multivariable analyses, for the variable included in the final model.

4. Discussion

The main findings of this retrospective, observational investigation can be summarized as follows: in a small cohort of mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients admitted to the ICU for moderate–severe C-ARDS, with a difficult weaning from mechanical ventilation, a successful weaning was associated with a lower age, higher oxygenation and a lower respiratory drive, as assessed at the bedside by monitoring the electrical activity of the diaphragm.

4.1. Comparison of the Findings with Other Studies

The study population showed baseline characteristics on admission that were very similar to those of patients with ARDS from COVID-19 admitted to other Italian [28] and worldwide [29] ICU centers in terms of sex (85% male patients, in line with the available literature on C-ARDS [30]), age (median age of 66 years, only slightly higher than reported in the literature [31]), and BMI (on average, 29.8 kg/m2, consistent with many meta-analyses reporting average values between 28 and 30 [32]).
Various reports are available on the negative outcome and complications associated with a difficult weaning from mechanical ventilation [33,34], and support the importance of weaning failure in the management of C-ARDS: weaning failure seems to be a key factor related to the subject’s final outcome.
The role of age may appear intuitive and aligned with the recent literature on COVID-19 patients [35], as well as the available evidence regarding classic ARDS. Although burdened by limitations such as intrapulmonary shunt and dead space [36] and the nonlinear correlation with FiO2 [37], the PaO2/FiO2 ratio represents the best clinical index available at present to assess the entity of lung parenchymal impairment. In a multicenter investigation of C-ARDS patients, a lower PaO2/FiO2 ratio was associated with a reduced likelihood of liberation from mechanical ventilation [33], as previously demonstrated in classic ARDS [38].
Notably, we found that EAdi might represent a valid prognostic index for weaning success, as it showed significantly lower values from the beginning of monitoring and a more stable trend in the weaning success group than in the failure group, with the latter showing a progressive increase in EAdi values from the third day of monitoring onward. Respiratory drive, defined as the activity of respiratory centers [39], affects the pathophysiology and clinical outcome of ARDS [20]: indeed, ARDS patients display a discrepancy between an increase in respiratory drive and the expected increase in ventilation (which has been termed neuroventilatory dissociation), which may be related to neuromuscular impairment and altered respiratory mechanics (atelectasis and decreased lung and chest wall compliance) [40]. Of note, weaning failure subjects had both increased EAdi values and alveolar dead space, despite a similar tidal volume and respiratory rate; this might suggest the occurrence of some degree of neuroventilatory dissociation, as the increased drive could not lead to increased alveolar ventilation.
No reference range for absolute EAdi values could be established due to the high interindividual variability in signal amplitude [41]; nevertheless, the Eadi trend allows for the tracking of neural output changes in individual patients [42,43]. EAdi alterations may underlie both central (e.g., sedation, brain injury) and peripheral (e.g., phrenic nerve injury or neuromuscular junction disease) causes of respiratory drive alteration. For instance, increased EAdi may suggest an increased respiratory drive due to muscular weakness [44], while reduced EAdi may suggest a reduced respiratory drive related to over-assistance in mechanical ventilation or excessive sedation [45]. In the present study, all patients were alert, calm and cooperative, or drowsy (i.e., with values on the RASS scale ranging from 0 to −1), potentially excluding the impact of sedation on the neural respiratory drive.

4.2. Respiratory Drive and ARDS

ARDS (and, in all likelihood, C-ARDS) is generally associated with alterations in respiratory drive induced by mechanisms specifically associated with lung inflammation and altered respiratory mechanics. Decreased lung and chest wall compliances increase the elastic load and may alter the neuro-mechanical coupling between strain and diaphragmatic excursion. The result is a decrease in effective ventilation and an increase in PaCO2, which induces a stimulation of respiratory drive and a dissociation between drive and effective ventilation. Pain, anxiety, fear, and discomfort are common in patients with ARDS, and all can affect the respiratory drive [46]. Pain affects respiratory drive both through behavioral responses and through a direct reflex on respiratory centers at the level of the medulla. On the other hand, the use of sedatives may reduce respiratory drive [45]. A poor patient–ventilator interaction is another determinant of drive in mechanically ventilated ARDS subjects: asynchronies may increase respiratory drive, since they cause discomfort and increased work when breathing [47]. Moreover, the more severe the lung injury, the greater the inspiratory effort will be, reflecting the increased activation of the respiratory drive [48]. An elevated respiratory drive can be considered appropriate when the activating stimulus can be corrected by an increased ventilatory response, such as during hypercapnia and hypoxemia, when an increased ventilation is the physiological response designed to correct these alterations. In contrast, several stimuli that increase the activity of respiratory centers in ARDS are not modified by ventilatory feedback, such as inflammation, pain, and anxiety, which all inappropriately induce an elevated respiratory drive. In the case of appropriately elevated respiratory drive, treatment should facilitate the ventilatory response (e.g., by increasing ventilatory support); in contrast, an inappropriately elevated drive requires specific treatment (e.g., anxiolytic drugs). In the context of ARDS, the effects on the lung should always be monitored, and an elevated respiratory drive, whether appropriate or inappropriate, should be controlled if it results in the generation of excessive pulmonary stress, resulting in an increased risk of self-inflicted lung injury [49]. Thus, a high respiratory drive may not only correlate with the severity of ARDS but, if not carefully managed, may contribute to lung and diaphragm damage.

4.3. Monitoring of Respiratory Drive during the Weaning Phase

The monitoring of respiratory drive is considered essential to titrate the external ventilator support during respiratory weaning in assisted ventilation, in order to avoid both under-assistance, which would result in respiratory fatigue and exhaustion, and over-assistance, which would instead result in diaphragm dysfunction from disuse. As observed by Jonkman and coll [50], during the weaning of patients with ARDS, excessive respiratory drive and high ventilatory demands increase dyspnea and may lead to weaning failure [51]. In patients with reduced respiratory muscle strength and excessive respiratory drive, the ability of the muscle to respond to neural demands is insufficient; therefore, dyspnea is experienced as a form of excessive inspiratory effort. The activation of accessory respiratory muscles appears to be strongly correlated with the intensity of dyspnea [52] and may lead to weaning failure [53]. The EAdi signal can be used as an indicator to determine the level of ventilatory support that is needed and to optimize weaning. Generally, as soon as the patient’s condition improves, the amplitude of the EAdi signal decreases, leading to a reduction in the level of assistance provided by the ventilator. This decrease in EAdi over time has been proposed as an index to consider weaning from ventilation and extubation.
The of role diaphragmatic electromyography as a predictor of respiratory weaning failure in a population of mechanically ventilated patients was evaluated by Dres and coll. [54], who found that EAdi allows for discrimination, from the earliest stages of SBT, of weaning success or failure from mechanical ventilation, and thus constitutes a potential reliable and early predictive marker for discriminating these two categories of patients. Another study [55] found that, in a population of mechanically ventilated, critically ill patients, extubation failed more frequently in patients characterized by a higher respiratory drive, as measured by EAdi. These findings were in agreement with previous studies showing that the occlusion pressure at 100 ms (P0.1), commonly used as a proxy for neural drive, was higher in patients experiencing weaning failure [56,57]. A recent physiological study used surface electromyography in patients undergoing a spontaneous breathing trial (SBT), and found that the electrical activity of respiratory muscles increased during SBT, regardless of SBT outcome, and patients who failed the SBT had a higher increase in the activity all the inspiratory muscles compared with those who passed the SBT [58].

5. Limitations

The present study has several limitations, which must be taken into consideration when interpreting its results. First, some limitations are inherent in the retrospective design of the study itself, which was based on the data available in patient charts, recorded by medical and nursing staff in an, at times, emergent work setting; this caused some of the data to be missing and, in addition, might have made the data susceptible to inaccuracy. The validity of the study is further limited by the fact that it was conducted in a single center, an element that could undermine the generalizability of the results, but that, on the other hand, allowed for a similar management of the ventilator aspects, which were standardized according to the local protocols. Our case-mix, as in other similar series of COVID-19-related ARDS [28], was mainly composed of male subjects. This poses the issue of a significant gender imbalance, which might affect the external validity of our findings. Indeed, gender and sex differences are becoming increasingly recognized as important, albeit underreported and underconsidered, factors in intensive care medicine [59]. Moreover, our study lacks a control group, which could have strengthened the findings by providing a baseline for comparison. Similarly, we enrolled adult patients, and our findings cannot be directly extrapolated to the pediatric population. The last limitation is related to the relatively small sample size and the fact that, due to the inherent characteristics of the study, the patient cohort was very selective and included only patients with respiratory failure and difficult weaning. On the other hand, this study has some important strengths; chief among them is it being, to our knowledge, the first study to specifically investigate the use of monitoring EAdi as a prognostic factor for the respiratory weaning of C-ARDS patients.

6. Conclusions

In conclusion, in patients with C-ARDS with difficult weaning, a high respiratory drive was associated with failure of respiratory weaning, independently of age and oxygenation. In these patients, the bedside monitoring of EAdi during the weaning phase might be a useful tool to identify patients at risk of weaning failure, regardless of the mechanical ventilation mode. This would make it possible to more accurately select the optimal timing for the start of weaning from ventilation, so that only those patients with the highest probability of weaning success would be directed to it.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.U., J.J.F. and S.M.; Methodology, M.U.; Formal Analysis, M.U.; Investigation, J.J.F. and I.C.C.; Data Curation, J.J.F.; Writing—Original Draft Preparation, J.J.F.; Writing—Review and Editing, M.U., and S.M.; Supervision, M.U.; Project Administration, S.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was approved by the local Ethics committee (Comitato Etico Interaziendale Milano Area 1, registration 2020/ST/207).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. COVID-19 Excess Mortality Collaborators. Estimating excess mortality due to the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic analysis of COVID-19-related mortality, 2020–2021. Lancet 2022, 399, 1513–1536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Matthay, M.A.; Zemans, R.L.; Zimmerman, G.A.; Arabi, Y.M.; Beitler, J.R.; Mercat, A.; Herridge, M.; Randolph, A.G.; Calfee, C.S. Acute respiratory distress syndrome. Nat. Rev. Dis. Primers 2019, 5, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Whittle, J.S.; Pavlov, I.; Sacchetti, A.D.; Atwood, C.; Rosenberg, M.S. Respiratory support for adult patients with COVID-19. J. Am. Coll. Emerg. Physicians Open 2020, 1, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Navas-Blanco, J.R.; Dudaryk, R. Management of Respiratory Distress Syndrome due to COVID-19 infection. BMC Anesthesiol. 2020, 20, 177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Silva, P.L.; Ball, L.; Rocco, P.R.M.; Pelosi, P. Power to mechanical power to minimize ventilator-induced lung injury? Intensive Care Med. Exp. 2019, 7, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Heyland, D.K.; Cook, D.J.; Griffith, L.; Keenan, S.P.; Brun-Buisson, C. The attributable morbidity and mortality of ventilator-associated pneumonia in the critically ill patient. The Canadian Critical Trials Group. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 1999, 159, 1249–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Ibrahim, E.H.; Tracy, L.; Hill, C.; Fraser, V.J.; Kollef, M.H. The occurrence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in a community hospital: Risk factors and clinical outcomes. Chest 2001, 120, 555–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Beitler, J.R.; Malhotra, A.; Thompson, B.T. Ventilator-induced Lung Injury. Clin. Chest Med. 2016, 37, 633–646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Boles, J.M.; Bion, J.; Connors, A.; Herridge, M.; Marsh, B.; Melot, C.; Pearl, R.; Silverman, H.; Stanchina, M.; Vieillard-Baron, A.; et al. Weaning from mechanical ventilation. Eur. Respir. J. 2007, 29, 1033–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Beduneau, G.; Pham, T.; Schortgen, F.; Piquilloud, L.; Zogheib, E.; Jonas, M.; Grelon, F.; Runge, I.; Nicolas, T.; Grange, S.; et al. Epidemiology of Weaning Outcome according to a New Definition. The WIND Study. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2017, 195, 772–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Funk, G.C.; Anders, S.; Breyer, M.K.; Burghuber, O.C.; Edelmann, G.; Heindl, W.; Hinterholzer, G.; Kohansal, R.; Schuster, R.; Schwarzmaier-D’Assie, A.; et al. Incidence and outcome of weaning from mechanical ventilation according to new categories. Eur. Respir. J. 2010, 35, 88–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Bordon, J.; Akca, O.; Furmanek, S.; Cavallazzi, R.S.; Suliman, S.; Aboelnasr, A.; Sinanova, B.; Ramirez, J.A. Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and Time to Weaning Off the Invasive Mechanical Ventilator among Patients with COVID-19 Pneumonia. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 2935. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bertoni, M.; Spadaro, S.; Goligher, E.C. Monitoring Patient Respiratory Effort During Mechanical Ventilation: Lung and Diaphragm-Protective Ventilation. Crit. Care 2020, 24, 106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Sinderby, C.; Navalesi, P.; Beck, J.; Skrobik, Y.; Comtois, N.; Friberg, S.; Gottfried, S.B.; Lindstrom, L. Neural control of mechanical ventilation in respiratory failure. Nat. Med. 1999, 5, 1433–1436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sinderby, C.A.; Beck, J.C.; Lindstrom, L.H.; Grassino, A.E. Enhancement of signal quality in esophageal recordings of diaphragm EMG. J. Appl. Physiol. 1997, 82, 1370–1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Umbrello, M.; Antonucci, E.; Muttini, S. Neurally Adjusted Ventilatory Assist in Acute Respiratory Failure-A Narrative Review. J. Clin. Med. 2022, 11, 1863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Luo, Y.M.; Moxham, J.; Polkey, M.I. Diaphragm electromyography using an oesophageal catheter: Current concepts. Clin. Sci. 2008, 115, 233–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Sinderby, C.; Beck, J.; Spahija, J.; de Marchie, M.; Lacroix, J.; Navalesi, P.; Slutsky, A.S. Inspiratory muscle unloading by neurally adjusted ventilatory assist during maximal inspiratory efforts in healthy subjects. Chest 2007, 131, 711–717. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Beck, J.; Gottfried, S.B.; Navalesi, P.; Skrobik, Y.; Comtois, N.; Rossini, M.; Sinderby, C. Electrical activity of the diaphragm during pressure support ventilation in acute respiratory failure. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2001, 164, 419–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Spinelli, E.; Mauri, T.; Beitler, J.R.; Pesenti, A.; Brodie, D. Respiratory drive in the acute respiratory distress syndrome: Pathophysiology, monitoring, and therapeutic interventions. Intensive Care Med. 2020, 46, 606–618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Force, A.D.T.; Ranieri, V.M.; Rubenfeld, G.D.; Thompson, B.T.; Ferguson, N.D.; Caldwell, E.; Fan, E.; Camporota, L.; Slutsky, A.S. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: The Berlin Definition. JAMA 2012, 307, 2526–2533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Wang, W.; Xu, Y.; Gao, R.; Lu, R.; Han, K.; Wu, G.; Tan, W. Detection of SARS-CoV-2 in Different Types of Clinical Specimens. JAMA 2020, 323, 1843–1844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Foti, G.; Giannini, A.; Bottino, N.; Castelli, G.P.; Cecconi, M.; Grasselli, G.; Guatteri, L.; Latronico, N.; Langer, T.; Monti, G.; et al. Management of critically ill patients with COVID-19: Suggestions and instructions from the coordination of intensive care units of Lombardy. Minerva Anestesiol. 2020, 86, 1234–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Umbrello, M.; Guglielmetti, L.; Formenti, P.; Antonucci, E.; Cereghini, S.; Filardo, C.; Montanari, G.; Muttini, S. Qualitative and quantitative muscle ultrasound changes in patients with COVID-19-related ARDS. Nutrition 2021, 91–92, 111449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ouellette, D.R.; Patel, S.; Girard, T.D.; Morris, P.E.; Schmidt, G.A.; Truwit, J.D.; Alhazzani, W.; Burns, S.M.; Epstein, S.K.; Esteban, A.; et al. Liberation From Mechanical Ventilation in Critically Ill Adults: An Official American College of Chest Physicians/American Thoracic Society Clinical Practice Guideline: Inspiratory Pressure Augmentation During Spontaneous Breathing Trials, Protocols Minimizing Sedation, and Noninvasive Ventilation Immediately After Extubation. Chest 2017, 151, 166–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Williams, E.C.; Motta-Ribeiro, G.C.; Vidal Melo, M.F. Driving Pressure and Transpulmonary Pressure: How Do We Guide Safe Mechanical Ventilation? Anesthesiology 2019, 131, 155–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Suarez-Sipmann, F.; Santos, A.; Bohm, S.H.; Borges, J.B.; Hedenstierna, G.; Tusman, G. Corrections of Enghoff’s dead space formula for shunt effects still overestimate Bohr’s dead space. Respir. Physiol. Neurobiol. 2013, 189, 99–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Grasselli, G.; Zangrillo, A.; Zanella, A.; Antonelli, M.; Cabrini, L.; Castelli, A.; Cereda, D.; Coluccello, A.; Foti, G.; Fumagalli, R.; et al. Baseline Characteristics and Outcomes of 1591 Patients Infected With SARS-CoV-2 Admitted to ICUs of the Lombardy Region, Italy. JAMA 2020, 323, 1574–1581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhu, J.; Wei, Z.; Suryavanshi, M.; Chen, X.; Xia, Q.; Jiang, J.; Ayodele, O.; Bradbury, B.D.; Brooks, C.; Brown, C.A.; et al. Characteristics and outcomes of hospitalised adults with COVID-19 in a Global Health Research Network: A cohort study. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e051588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Peckham, H.; de Gruijter, N.M.; Raine, C.; Radziszewska, A.; Ciurtin, C.; Wedderburn, L.R.; Rosser, E.C.; Webb, K.; Deakin, C.T. Male sex identified by global COVID-19 meta-analysis as a risk factor for death and ITU admission. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 6317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Tiruneh, S.A.; Tesema, Z.T.; Azanaw, M.M.; Angaw, D.A. The effect of age on the incidence of COVID-19 complications: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst. Rev. 2021, 10, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Gao, M.; Piernas, C.; Astbury, N.M.; Hippisley-Cox, J.; O’Rahilly, S.; Aveyard, P.; Jebb, S.A. Associations between body-mass index and COVID-19 severity in 6.9 million people in England: A prospective, community-based, cohort study. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol. 2021, 9, 350–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Gamberini, L.; Tonetti, T.; Spadaro, S.; Zani, G.; Mazzoli, C.A.; Capozzi, C.; Giampalma, E.; Bacchi Reggiani, M.L.; Bertellini, E.; Castelli, A.; et al. Factors influencing liberation from mechanical ventilation in coronavirus disease 2019: Multicenter observational study in fifteen Italian ICUs. J. Intensive Care 2020, 8, 80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Kasugai, D.; Ozaki, M.; Nishida, K.; Hiraiwa, H.; Jingushi, N.; Numaguchi, A.; Omote, N.; Shindo, Y.; Goto, Y. Usefulness of Respiratory Mechanics and Laboratory Parameter Trends as Markers of Early Treatment Success in Mechanically Ventilated Severe Coronavirus Disease: A Single-Center Pilot Study. J. Clin. Med. 2021, 10, 2513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Cummings, M.J.; Baldwin, M.R.; Abrams, D.; Jacobson, S.D.; Meyer, B.J.; Balough, E.M.; Aaron, J.G.; Claassen, J.; Rabbani, L.E.; Hastie, J.; et al. Epidemiology, clinical course, and outcomes of critically ill adults with COVID-19 in New York City: A prospective cohort study. Lancet 2020, 395, 1763–1770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Gattinoni, L.; Vassalli, F.; Romitti, F. Benefits and risks of the P/F approach. Intensive Care Med. 2018, 44, 2245–2247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Karbing, D.S.; Kjaergaard, S.; Smith, B.W.; Espersen, K.; Allerod, C.; Andreassen, S.; Rees, S.E. Variation in the PaO2/FiO2 ratio with FiO2: Mathematical and experimental description, and clinical relevance. Crit. Care 2007, 11, R118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Bellani, G.; Laffey, J.G.; Pham, T.; Fan, E.; Brochard, L.; Esteban, A.; Gattinoni, L.; van Haren, F.; Larsson, A.; McAuley, D.F.; et al. Epidemiology, Patterns of Care, and Mortality for Patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in Intensive Care Units in 50 Countries. JAMA 2016, 315, 788–800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Telias, I.; Brochard, L.; Goligher, E.C. Is my patient’s respiratory drive (too) high? Intensive Care Med. 2018, 44, 1936–1939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Vaporidi, K.; Akoumianaki, E.; Telias, I.; Goligher, E.C.; Brochard, L.; Georgopoulos, D. Respiratory Drive in Critically Ill Patients. Pathophysiology and Clinical Implications. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2020, 201, 20–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Piquilloud, L.; Beloncle, F.; Richard, J.M.; Mancebo, J.; Mercat, A.; Brochard, L. Information conveyed by electrical diaphragmatic activity during unstressed, stressed and assisted spontaneous breathing: A physiological study. Ann. Intensive Care 2019, 9, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Roze, H.; Lafrikh, A.; Perrier, V.; Germain, A.; Dewitte, A.; Gomez, F.; Janvier, G.; Ouattara, A. Daily titration of neurally adjusted ventilatory assist using the diaphragm electrical activity. Intensive Care Med. 2011, 37, 1087–1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Muttini, S.; Villani, P.G.; Trimarco, R.; Bellani, G.; Grasselli, G.; Patroniti, N. Relation between peak and integral of the diaphragm electromyographic activity at different levels of support during weaning from mechanical ventilation: A physiologic study. J. Crit. Care 2015, 30, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Colombo, D.; Cammarota, G.; Bergamaschi, V.; De Lucia, M.; Corte, F.D.; Navalesi, P. Physiologic response to varying levels of pressure support and neurally adjusted ventilatory assist in patients with acute respiratory failure. Intensive Care Med. 2008, 34, 2010–2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Roze, H.; Germain, A.; Perrier, V.; Dewitte, A.; Joannes-Boyau, O.; Fleureau, C.; Ouattara, A. Effect of flumazenil on diaphragm electrical activation during weaning from mechanical ventilation after acute respiratory distress syndrome. Br. J. Anaesth. 2015, 114, 269–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Tipton, M.J.; Harper, A.; Paton, J.F.R.; Costello, J.T. The human ventilatory response to stress: Rate or depth? J. Physiol. 2017, 595, 5729–5752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Pham, T.; Telias, I.; Piraino, T.; Yoshida, T.; Brochard, L.J. Asynchrony Consequences and Management. Crit. Care Clin. 2018, 34, 325–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Yoshida, T.; Uchiyama, A.; Matsuura, N.; Mashimo, T.; Fujino, Y. The comparison of spontaneous breathing and muscle paralysis in two different severities of experimental lung injury. Crit. Care Med. 2013, 41, 536–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Sklienka, P.; Frelich, M.; Bursa, F. Patient Self-Inflicted Lung Injury-A Narrative Review of Pathophysiology, Early Recognition, and Management Options. J. Pers. Med. 2023, 13, 593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Jonkman, A.H.; de Vries, H.J.; Heunks, L.M.A. Physiology of the Respiratory Drive in ICU Patients: Implications for Diagnosis and Treatment. Crit. Care 2020, 24, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Schmidt, M.; Banzett, R.B.; Raux, M.; Morelot-Panzini, C.; Dangers, L.; Similowski, T.; Demoule, A. Unrecognized suffering in the ICU: Addressing dyspnea in mechanically ventilated patients. Intensive Care Med. 2014, 40, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Schmidt, M.; Kindler, F.; Gottfried, S.B.; Raux, M.; Hug, F.; Similowski, T.; Demoule, A. Dyspnea and surface inspiratory electromyograms in mechanically ventilated patients. Intensive Care Med. 2013, 39, 1368–1376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Doorduin, J.; Roesthuis, L.H.; Jansen, D.; van der Hoeven, J.G.; van Hees, H.W.H.; Heunks, L.M.A. Respiratory Muscle Effort during Expiration in Successful and Failed Weaning from Mechanical Ventilation. Anesthesiology 2018, 129, 490–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Dres, M.; Schmidt, M.; Ferre, A.; Mayaux, J.; Similowski, T.; Demoule, A. Diaphragm electromyographic activity as a predictor of weaning failure. Intensive Care Med. 2012, 38, 2017–2025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Liu, L.; Liu, H.; Yang, Y.; Huang, Y.; Liu, S.; Beck, J.; Slutsky, A.S.; Sinderby, C.; Qiu, H. Neuroventilatory efficiency and extubation readiness in critically ill patients. Crit. Care 2012, 16, R143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Vallverdu, I.; Calaf, N.; Subirana, M.; Net, A.; Benito, S.; Mancebo, J. Clinical characteristics, respiratory functional parameters, and outcome of a two-hour T-piece trial in patients weaning from mechanical ventilation. Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 1998, 158, 1855–1862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Capdevila, X.J.; Perrigault, P.F.; Perey, P.J.; Roustan, J.P.; d’Athis, F. Occlusion pressure and its ratio to maximum inspiratory pressure are useful predictors for successful extubation following T-piece weaning trial. Chest 1995, 108, 482–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Pozzi, M.; Rezoagli, E.; Bronco, A.; Rabboni, F.; Grasselli, G.; Foti, G.; Bellani, G. Accessory and Expiratory Muscles Activation During Spontaneous Breathing Trial: A Physiological Study by Surface Electromyography. Front. Med. 2022, 9, 814219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Merdji, H.; Long, M.T.; Ostermann, M.; Herridge, M.; Myatra, S.N.; De Rosa, S.; Metaxa, V.; Kotfis, K.; Robba, C.; De Jong, A.; et al. Sex and gender differences in intensive care medicine. Intensive Care Med. 2023, 49, 1155–1167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jcm 13 01120 g001
Figure 1. Flow chart of patient selection.
Figure 1. Flow chart of patient selection.
Jcm 13 01120 g001
Jcm 13 01120 g002
Figure 2. Time course of the electrical activity of the diaphragm in patients with weaning success or weaning failure.
Figure 2. Time course of the electrical activity of the diaphragm in patients with weaning success or weaning failure.
Jcm 13 01120 g002
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the whole cohort upon admission to the Intensive Care Unit and comparison between patients with weaning success or weaning failure.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of the whole cohort upon admission to the Intensive Care Unit and comparison between patients with weaning success or weaning failure.
Whole Cohort
n = 20		Weaning Success
n = 13 (65%)		Weaning Failure
n = 7 (35%)		p-Value
Anthropometric measures
Male sex (n - %)17 (85)11 (84.6)6 (85.7)0.7300
Actual body weight (kg)83 (75–93)82 (77.50–91)85 (71–95)>0.9999
Height (cm)170 (165–175)171 (162–175)170 (168–172)0.4011
Predicted body weight (kg) 54 (60–67)64 (58–67)64 (62–65)0.4691
Body mass index (kg/m2)29.8 (25.3–32.8)29.7 (25.8–32.9)30.0 (24.8–32.1)0.9684
Age (years)66 (60–69)63 (59–68)69 (64–74)0.0291
Comorbidities
Hypertension (n - %)7 (35)11 (68.80)18 (75)0.6650
Diabetes (n - %)3 (15)1 (6.25)4 (16.70)0.9524
COPD (n - %)3 (15)1 (7.7)2 (28.6)0.2120
AACCI (points)3 (2–5)3 (2–5)4 (3–5)0.3539
Severity scores
SOFA (points)3 (2–4)3 (2–4)4 (2–8)0.2369
SAPS II (points)28 (23–34)27 (18–29)35 (28–49)0.0190
Biochemical parameters
PCT (μg/L)0.28 (0.19–0.76)0.34 (0.21–0.82)0.27 (0.18–0.34)0.5782
CRP (mg/dL)9.0 (2.8–14.6)9.9 (2–17.9)7.2 (3.7–11.8)0.4054
Fibrinogen (mg/dL)640 (562–674)660 (579–674)580 (548–690)0.8429
D-dimer (ng/mL)1024 (560–1666)591 (520–1695)1503 (1151–1638)0.1223
Hb (g/dL)12.1 (10.9–13.4)12 (11–12.8)12.2 (10.3–13.6)0.9684
PLTs (103/μL)242 (183–299)257 (214–331)187 (183–257)0.1776
WBC (103/μL)9.5 (7.4–13.6)9.4 (6.7–13)10.5 (8.1–16.7)0.3620
Creatinine (mg/dL)0.68 (0.53–0.85)0.66 (0.62–0.81)0.70 (0.55–0.96)0.6917
Bilirubin (mg/dL)0.50 (0.40–0.76)0.40 (0.40–0.60)0.60 (0.40–0.80)0.1939
AST–GOT (U/L)35 (24.50–43)37 (29–46)29 (19–36)0.1776
ALT–GPT (U/L)33.50 (22–45)38 (25–73)27 (16–41)0.1220
Ventilatory parameters
PEEP (cmH2O)10 (10–12)10 (10–10)12 (10–12)0.1511
FiO2 (%)75 (57–82)70 (60–80)80 (50–100)0.6591
Tv (mL)480 (450–480)480 (450–480)480 (420–490)0.7988
Tv/PBW (mL/kg)7.27 (6.98–7.98)7.49 (6.80–8.43)7.27 (6.98–7.66)0.1403
Pplat (cmH2O)20 (18–21)19 (18–21)20 (16–23)0.7682
DP (cmH2O)10 (8–11)10 (8–11)9 (8–12)0.6195
Crs (mL/cmH2O)53 (43–57)50 (44–56)53 (38–61)0.6252
pH7.44 (7.36–7.46)7.44 (7.37–7.46)7.42 (7.36–7.51)0.9682
PaCO2 (mmHg)43 (37–51)43 (37–51)43 (41–49)0.8423
PaO2 (mmHg)99 (82–134)99 (74–124)131 (84–141)0.2847
PaO2/FiO2 (mmHg)148 (126–177)140 (122–165)171 (131–235)0.1221
BE (mmol/L)4.4 (2.1–8.9)4.1 (2.2–5.9)5.6 (2.1–9.1)0.7213
EtCO2 (mmHg)31 (27–37)33 (29–38)29 (27–34)0.2754
Outcomes
Duration of ventilation (days)35 (13–44)36 (8–44)32 (30–39)0.9053
ICU length of stay (days)36 (13–45)37 (9–45)35 (30–39)0.8740
COPD: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; AACCI: age-adjusted Charleson comorbidity index; SOFA: sequential organ failure assessment score; SAPS II: simplified acute physiology score, 2nd version; PCT: procalcitonin; CRP: C-reactive protein; Hb: hemoglobin, PLTs: platelet count; WBC: white blood cell count; PEEP: positive end-expiratory pressure; FiO2: fraction of inspired oxygen; TV: tidal volume; PBW: predicted body weight; Pplat: airway plateau pressure; DP: airway driving pressure; Crs: respiratory system compliance; PaO2: partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood; PaCO2: partial pressure of carbon dioxide in arterial blood; BE: base excess; EtCO2: end tidal carbon dioxide.
Table 2. Comparison of gas exchange, ventilatory, and respiratory mechanics parameters in the different phases of the study in patients with weaning success or weaning failure.
Table 2. Comparison of gas exchange, ventilatory, and respiratory mechanics parameters in the different phases of the study in patients with weaning success or weaning failure.
Weaning Success
n = 13 (65%)		Weaning Failure
n = 7 (35%)		pweaningpdaypweaning#day
PEEP (cmH2O) 0.82180.08800.7518
T010 (7–10)10 (8–10)
T110 (6–12)8 (8–10)
T210 (8–12)10 (8–10)
T310 (8–10)10 (8–10)
T78 (8–10)8 (8–10)
T108 (6–9)8 (7–8)
FiO2 (%) <0.00010.73250.0005
T040 (40–60)50 (45–55)
T150 (40–60)50 (50–60)
T250 (40–55)60 (50–70)
T340 (40–60)60 (55–70)
T737 (35–45)70 (60–80)
T1040 (32–40)65 (45–80)
RR (1/min) 0.34480.05640.0054
T020 (19–24)20 (14–22)
T123 (20–25)24 (20–26)
T224 (20–25)24 (14–26)
T322 (18–25)26 (22–28)
T720 (18–28)29 (28–32)
T1025 (19–32)24 (20–27)
Tv (mL) 0.11720.76610.2139
T0616 (486–715)600 (585–631)
T1581 (537–660)570 (457–696)
T2527 (432–636)640 (457–660)
T3572 (511–646)610 (457–745)
T7566 (493–655)475 (390–550)
T10584 (468–600)492 (380–642)
Tv/PBW (mL/kg) 0.11870.76710.2746
T09.9 (8.2–10.8)9.3 (8.7–9.8)
T18.6 (8.2–11.1)8.4 (7.1–10.8)
T29.0 (6.8–10.9)9.7 (7.1–11.4)
T38.7 (8.0–10.4)9.2 (7.1–12.4)
T79.6 (8.7–9.9)7.1 (6.0–8.0)
T109.3 (7.7–12.5)7.2 (5.6–9.5)
MVe (L/min) 0.65220.81150.4490
T014 (13–15)12 (9–16)
T112 (10–15)13 (12–14)
T213 (10–15)12 (9–16)
T313 (10–14)16 (13–18)
T713 (12–16)13 (12–15)
T1014 (9–18)12 (10–11)
EAdi (μV) <0.00010.00750.0800
T015 (14–16)20 (15–30)
T113 (12–16)25 (13–29)
T214 (12–16)24 (16–30)
T313 (12–14)18 (10–22)
T713 (10–14)25 (14–30)
T1014 (12–20)28 (18–35)
PaO2 (mmHg) 0.05760.55960.0465
T096 (85–104)97 (87–114)
T1100 (91–112)100 (83–119)
T2102 (96–107)109 (70–139)
T390 (80–119)90 (65–117)
T799 (77–127)78 (65–91)
T10105 (98–118)74 (69–91)
PaCO2 (mmHg) <0.00010.55770.6513
T041 (36–45)43 (38–57)
T139 (38–45)47 (38–50)
T240 (36–45)48 (40–62)
T340 (37–45)47 (39–52)
T744 (36–50)54 (43–56)
T1045 (36–48)53 (53–55)
PaO2/FiO2 (mmHg) <0.00010.76320.0001
T0210 (125–260)185 (167–228)
T1224 (157–280)189 (166–200)
T2258 (185–291)161 (151–232)
T3218 (150–291)148 (105–213)
T7262 (220–302)111 (89–163)
T10298 (224–353)136 (92–191)
Crs (mL/cmH2O) 0.24310.09870.3311
T032 (28–40)39 (26–43)
T135 (28–40)38 (27–46)
T231 (30–35)41 (26–48)
T336 (26–40)33 (25–40)
T734 (28–36)26 (23–38)
T1031 (27–39)27 (21–34)
EtCO2 (mmHg) 0.17380.27030.3215
T030 (28–35)26 (24–40)
T127 (26–37)29 (26–35)
T230 (26–35)32 (28–34)
T330 (25–35)31 (26–36)
T735 (30–37)33 (29–35)
T1033 (31–38)38 (37–40)
Vd/Vt (%) 0.00010.42570.7019
T025.0 (19.3–29.2)37.5 (29.8–43.6)
T125.0 (22.5–32.5)32.4 (25.5–36.5)
T225.7 (16.6–33.3)32.0 (26.1–33.3)
T326.9 (17.7–32.4)34.1 (33.3–41.6)
T720.4 (17.3–28.2)38.8 (30.9–41.0)
T1023.4 (14.5–24.4)28.0 (25.2–32.0)
PEEP: positive end-expiratory pressure; FiO2: fraction of inspired oxygen; RR: respiratory rate; TV: tidal volume; PBW: predicted body weight; MVe: minute ventilation; EAdi: electrical activity of the diaphragm; PaO2: partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood; PaCO2: partial pressure of carbon dioxide in arterial blood; Crs: respiratory system compliance; EtCO2: end tidal carbon dioxide; Vd/Vt: Alveolar dead space.
Table 3. Odds ratios upon univariable and multivariable analyses for the variable included in the final model.
Table 3. Odds ratios upon univariable and multivariable analyses for the variable included in the final model.
VariableUnivariateMultivariate
AgeOR 0.60 (95%CI 0.52–0.78)OR 0.02 (95%CI 0.01–0.11)
PaO2/FiO2OR 1.02 (95%CI 1.01–1.11)OR 1.10 (95%CI 1.01–1.21)
EAdiOR 0.86 (95%CI 0.81–0.93)OR 0.16 (95%CI 0.08–0.34)
FiO2: fraction of inspired oxygen; PaO2: partial pressure of oxygen in arterial blood; EAdi: electrical activity of the diaphragm.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Muttini, S.; Jona Falco, J.; Cuevas Cairo, I.; Umbrello, M. A High Respiratory Drive Is Associated with Weaning Failure in Patients with COVID-19-Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: The Role of the Electrical Activity of the Diaphragm. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 1120. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13041120

AMA Style

Muttini S, Jona Falco J, Cuevas Cairo I, Umbrello M. A High Respiratory Drive Is Associated with Weaning Failure in Patients with COVID-19-Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: The Role of the Electrical Activity of the Diaphragm. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(4):1120. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13041120

Chicago/Turabian Style

Muttini, Stefano, Jacopo Jona Falco, Ilmari Cuevas Cairo, and Michele Umbrello. 2024. "A High Respiratory Drive Is Associated with Weaning Failure in Patients with COVID-19-Associated Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: The Role of the Electrical Activity of the Diaphragm" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 4: 1120. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13041120

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop