Skip to main content
Download PDF

Barotrauma in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: retrospective analysis of the COVADIS prospective multicenter observational database

BMC Anesthesiology volume 23, Article number: 138 (2023) Cite this article

A Correction to this article was published on 20 June 2023

This article has been updated

Abstract

Background

Despite evidence suggesting a higher risk of barotrauma during COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) compared to ARDS due to other causes, data are limited about possible associations with patient characteristics, ventilation strategy, and survival.

Methods

This prospective observational multicenter study included consecutive patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 ARDS requiring invasive mechanical ventilation and managed at any of 12 centers in France and Belgium between March and December 2020. The primary objective was to determine whether barotrauma was associated with ICU mortality (censored on day 90), and the secondary objective was to identify factors associated with barotrauma.

Results

Of 586 patients, 48 (8.2%) experienced barotrauma, including 35 with pneumothorax, 23 with pneumomediastinum, 1 with pneumoperitoneum, and 6 with subcutaneous emphysema. Median time from mechanical ventilation initiation to barotrauma detection was 3 [0–17] days. All patients received protective ventilation and nearly half (23/48) were in volume-controlled mode. Barotrauma was associated with higher hospital mortality (P < 0.001) even after adjustment on age, sex, comorbidities, PaO2/FiO2 at intubation, plateau pressure at intubation, and center (P < 0.05). The group with barotrauma had a lower mean body mass index (28.6 ± 5.8 vs. 30.3 ± 5.9, P = 0.03) and a higher proportion of patients given corticosteroids (87.5% vs. 63.4%, P = 0.001).

Conclusion

Barotrauma during mechanical ventilation for COVID-19 ARDS was associated with higher hospital mortality.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has infected at least 460 million people worldwide, and the official count of 6 million deaths is probably an underestimation [1]. The most common cause of death in coronavirus virus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) with hypoxemic respiratory failure [2]. Among patients admitted for COVID-19, 8–32% require admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) [3, 4] and 19% are placed on invasive mechanical ventilation [4].

Barotrauma from mechanical ventilation is defined clinically as alveolar rupture manifesting as pneumomediastinum, pneumothorax, pneumopericardium, and/or subcutaneous emphysema [5]. The pressures and volumes applied by the ventilator play a key role, although factors that weaken the alveolar wall may also be involved [5]. Barotrauma is a well-documented complication of non-COVID-19 viral ARDS requiring mechanical ventilation for whatever reason [5]. Protective ventilation strategies that limit ventilation volumes and pressures are recommended to avoid these complications, notably in patients with ARDS [6]. Compared to other forms of ARDS, COVID-19 ARDS has been described as atypical given the higher lung compliance and gas volume at a given PaO2//FiO2 ratio [7]. Another atypical feature may be a higher risk of barotrauma: a literature review published in March 2022 showed barotrauma in 14.7% of COVID-19 patients compared to 6.3% of patients with ARDS due to other causes [8]. Other studies found barotrauma in up to 26.7% of patients [9, 10]. Also, rare cases of barotrauma have been reported in spontaneously breathing patients with COVID-19 [11, 12].

The primary objective of this retrospective analysis of the prospective multicenter observational COVADIS study was to determine whether barotrauma was associated with hospital mortality. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the incidence, risk factors, and other outcomes of barotrauma.

Patients and methods

This report complies with STROBE guidelines [13].

Study design and patients

This was a retrospective analysis of the data from the COVADIS observational cohort study. COVADIS prospectively included patients admitted between March and December 2020 to any of 12 ICUs, including 7 in Belgium and 5 in France [14,15,16,17,18]. Inclusion criteria were age older than 18 years, moderate-to-severe ARDS according to the Berlin definition [19] (PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mmHg with positive end-expiratory pressure ≥ 5 mmHg during invasive mechanical ventilation), and positive COVID-19 reverse-transcriptase polymerase-chain-reaction test on a sample from any site. Patients with negative COVID-19 polymerase chain reaction tests were not included even when they had computed tomography abnormalities typical for COVID-19. Non-inclusion criteria were cardiac arrest before ICU admission, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation within 24 h after ICU admission, Gold stage III or IV chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and home oxygen therapy.

Data collection

Between March 10 and December 31, 2020, consecutive COVID-19 patients admitted to the participating ICUs were screened for eligibility, and those who met the inclusion and non-inclusion criteria were enrolled in the cohort. The investigator in each ICU used an electronic case-report form (Castor EDC, Amsterdam, The Netherlands) to record the following for each patient: demographics; medical history; Charlson Comorbidity Index [20] with addition of chronic hypertension; and the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score at ICU admission [21]. Recorded data describing the ICU management included mechanical ventilation settings and duration; use of advanced treatments for acute respiratory failure (neuromuscular blocking agents, inhaled pulmonary vasodilators, prone positioning, and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation); use of antivirals, interleukin-6-receptor antagonists, and corticosteroids, with time from symptom onset to initiation; acute kidney injury; acute cardiac injury defined as troponin elevation above 10 times the upper limit of normal; use of norepinephrine and/or epinephrine and/or vasopressin; and occurrence of pulmonary embolism and/or deep vein thrombosis. Cases of barotrauma with their characteristics were collected. Barotrauma was defined as the presence of air outside the pleural aspect of the lung and included pneumothorax, pneumomediastinum, pneumopericardium, pneumoperitoneum, and subcutaneous emphysema. Patients were not screened routinely for barotrauma during the study period. The strategy for diagnosing barotrauma was at the discretion of each managing physician and could include physical examination, transthoracic and/or transesophageal echocardiography, chest radiography, chest computed tomography, and/or abdominal computed tomography. We defined baseline (T0) as the day of ICU admission.

Outcomes

The primary objective was to assess whether barotrauma was associated with ICU mortality, censored on day 90, which was therefore the primary outcome measure. The secondary objectives were to determine the incidence, risk factors, and other outcomes associated with barotrauma.

Statistical analysis

Based on two studies of ARDS, we planned to include at least 500 patients to obtain at least 30 patients with barotrauma [22, 23].

Continuous variables were described as mean ± SD or median [IQR] and compared by applying Student’s t test if normally distributed and the Wilcoxon rank-sum test otherwise. Categorical variables were described as n (%) and compared using the chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test, as appropriate.

A pre-planned adjusted mixed multivariable analysis was performed using a generalized mixed model to identify associations linking ICU mortality (primary outcome, censored on day 90) to barotrauma. Adjustment variables were age, sex, baseline plateau pressure, baseline PaO2/FiO2, Charlson Comorbidity Index, and center [15]. The Hosmer-Lemeshow test and visual inspection of residuals were chosen to check the quality of the model.

No imputation was performed for missing data. P values < 0.05 were considered significant.

All analyses were performed using Stata software version 16 (StataCorp, College Station, TX).

Results

Baseline characteristics

Of the 586 included patients, 48 (8.1%) experienced barotrauma. Table 1 reports their main features at baseline.

Table 1 Main patient characteristics and treatments
Full size table

Barotrauma and association with day-90 mortality

Table 1 compares the baseline features in patients with vs. without barotrauma. Barotrauma manifested as pneumothorax (n = 35, 6%), pneumomediastinum (n = 23, 4%), and/or pneumoperitoneum (n = 1, < 1%); no patient had pneumopericardium. Subcutaneous emphysema developed in 6 (1%) patients, all of whom had at least one of the above-listed manifestations. Median time from invasive mechanical ventilation initiation to barotrauma was 3 [0–17] days. Table 2 reports the ventilator settings at barotrauma detection. PaO2/FiO2 within 12 h before barotrauma detection was 136 [90–180]. Of the 35 patients with pneumothorax, 24 (50%) required pleural drainage and 1 (2%) surgery. Of the 48 patients with barotrauma, only 3 (6%) required no intervention and 43 required one or more interventions among the following: pleural drainage (n = 24, 50%), ventilation mode change (n = 14, 29%), sedation regimen change (n = 10, 21%), surgery (n = 1, 2%), and other interventions (e.g., neuromuscular blockade or cardiac-arrest resuscitation) (n = 5, 10%). Table 3 compares the other outcomes and survival in patients with vs. without barotrauma.

Table 2 Ventilator settings at barotrauma detection in the 48 patients with barotrauma
Full size table
Table 3 Outcomes in patients with and without barotrauma
Full size table

Tables 1 and 3 compare the baseline features and outcomes, respectively, in patients with vs. without barotrauma. Figure 1 is the Kaplan-Meier plot of survival censored on day 90 in each group. After adjustment on age, male sex, Charlson Comorbidity Index, PaO2/FiO2 at intubation, plateau pressure at intubation, and center, barotrauma was significantly and independently associated with higher day-90 mortality (Fig. 2).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Kaplan-Meier survival plots in the groups with and without barotrauma

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot of factors analyzed for association with day-90 mortality

Full size image

Discussion

Of 586 patients who required mechanical ventilation for moderate-to-severe COVID-19 ARDS, 48 (8.2%) experienced barotrauma. Only 6% of patients with barotrauma required no additional interventions to treat this event, and half required pleural drainage. In the multivariable analysis adjusted for potential confounders, barotrauma was independently associated with death before hospital discharge.

The 8.2% frequency of barotrauma in our patients is within the reported range of 3.5–8.6% for all-cause ARDS [23,24,25,26] and is lower than the 26.7% frequency reported in COVID-19 ARDS very early in the pandemic (March and April 2020) [27]. The lower frequency in our population may be ascribable to the uniformity of the patient population with moderate-to-severe ARDS, with high adherence to neuromuscular blockade infusion [16] and prone positioning [15]. Protective ventilation, when properly applied, decreases the risk of barotrauma. Nonetheless, even with protective ventilation, barotrauma in COVID-19 ARDS has occurred in 17% [28], 24% [27], and 40% [29] of patients. In a study comparing non-COVID-19 to COVID-19 ARDS managed with protective ventilation, the incidences of barotrauma were 1.9% and 13.6%, respectively [30]. These high frequencies suggest the involvement of factors other than the ventilation pattern in the development of barotrauma during COVID-19 ARDS, particularly given the higher lung compliance in COVID-19 ARDS compared to other causes of ARDS [7].

Direct damage to the alveolar wall induced by SARS-CoV-2 deserves consideration as a possible contributor to barotrauma. Consistent with this possibility are several reports of air leakage outside the alveoli in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia who were not receiving ventilatory assistance [12]. If this extra-alveolar air is not related to high inspiratory pressures or to hyperinflation linked to excessive tidal volumes, another cause must be sought. Macklin first studied the causes of extra-alveolar air, in the 1940s [31]. The Macklin effect has been defined as a linear collection of air contiguous to the bronchovascular sheaths on lung parenchyma-windowed computed tomography images [32]. Macklin stated that air released by alveolar destruction migrated via dissection of the bronchovascular tree from the alveoli to the pulmonary hilum. Alveolar destruction can be caused by barotrauma (high inspiratory pressures or hyperinflation) or by direct damage to the alveoli. However, lung-protection ventilation parameters designed to prevent extra-alveolar air were used in our patients. This leaves direct alveolar damage by the virus as the likely cause of alveolar destruction [33]. Interestingly, the Macklin effect was recently identified by baseline computed tomography in 33 of 37 COVID-19 patients who subsequently experienced pneumothorax and/or pneumomediastinum, the median time interval being 8.5 [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18] days [34].

Second, differences have been reported between ARDS due to COVID-19 vs. other causes, including higher lung compliance and lung gas volumes [35]. Differences may also exist in damage to the alveolar wall, notably given the very high degree of inflammation, with a cytokine storm, in COVID-19 [36].

Third, corticosteroids increase tissue fragility [37] and may therefore weaken the alveolar wall. In a comparison of the first and second COVID-19 waves in Italy, 14 of 2635 non-intubated patients experienced pneumothorax or pneumomediastinum, including 1 during the first and 13 during the second wave. The main treatment difference was the widespread use of corticosteroids during the second wave [38]. Thus, all 13 patients identified during the second wave were on corticosteroid therapy, whereas the single patient during the first wave was not. In interstitial lung disease, an association linking corticosteroid therapy to pneumothorax has been reported [39]. In our study, the proportion of patients given corticosteroid therapy was significantly higher in the group with vs. without barotrauma. The times from symptom onset and from intubation to corticosteroid initiation were not significantly different between the two groups.

Fourth, COVID-19 is a thrombogenic disease, and thromboprophylaxis is now a key component of its management [40]. Pulmonary embolism in our cohort was significantly more common among patients with vs. without barotrauma. Conceivably, microvascular dysfunction might contribute to barotrauma in COVID-19 [41]. A word of caution is in order, however: whether these specific characteristics of COVID-19 compared to other causes of ARDS deserve a change in ventilation strategies is unclear, as similar respiratory mechanics have been reported [42].

Interestingly, of the 35 patients with pneumothorax, 24 (68%) required pleural drainage, a proportion similar to that noted in a multicenter case-control study (73/110, 66%) [43]. Apart from pneumothorax drainage, barotrauma had several consequences on patient management. In our study, the ventilation pattern was changed in over a quarter of patients and the sedation regimen in over a fifth of patients. Changes in ventilator settings after barotrauma aim to further protect the alveoli. The resulting decreased ability to perform aggressive recruitment maneuvers may increase invasive mechanical ventilation duration and decrease survival [26]. Increased sedation is designed to minimize asynchronies potentially associated with barotrauma but is associated with longer invasive mechanical ventilation times. The changes in ventilator settings and sedation probably explain the significantly longer invasive mechanical ventilation duration in our barotrauma group.

The limitations of our study include the availability of ventilation parameters only for the time of intubation and the time of barotrauma detection. Consequently, we were unable to evaluate potential links between the overall protective ventilation strategy and barotrauma. Second, the design was observational, with treatment decisions at the discretion of the managing physicians. Finally, the patients were included during the first ten months of the pandemic, i.e., the first and second waves in France. Whether the frequency and risk factors of barotrauma have changed with the emergence of new SARS-CoV-2 variants and with the major changes in COVID-19 management during this period cannot be determined from our data.

Conclusion

In patients with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 ARDS requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, barotrauma was significantly associated with higher hospital mortality. Barotrauma was associated with longer invasive mechanical ventilation duration, pulmonary embolism, and corticosteroid therapy. The mechanism of barotrauma occurring in COVID-19 despite protective ventilation and, more specifically, the possible role for corticosteroid therapy deserve investigation.

Data availability

The study database will be made available upon request to the corresponding author after approval of the study request protocol by our institutional review board.

Change history

Abbreviations

ARDS:

acute respiratory distress syndrome

COVID-19:

coronavirus disease 2019

ICU:

intensive care unit

PaO2/FiO2 :

ratio of arterial partial oxygen pressure over fraction of inspired oxygen

SARS-CoV-2:

severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2

References

  1. CovidTracker. - Suivez l’épidémie de Covid19 en France et dans le monde. CovidTracker. https://covidtracker.fr/. Accessed 19 May 2022.

  2. Guan WJ, Ni ZY, Hu Y, Liang WH, Ou CQ, He JX, et al. Clinical characteristics of Coronavirus Disease 2019 in China. N Engl J Med. 2020;382:1708–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kim L, Garg S, O’Halloran A, Whitaker M, Pham H, Anderson EJ, et al. Risk factors for Intensive Care Unit Admission and In-hospital mortality among hospitalized adults identified through the US Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)-Associated hospitalization Surveillance Network (COVID-NET). Clin Infect Dis. 2021;72:e206–14.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Docherty AB, Harrison EM, Green CA, Hardwick HE, Pius R, Norman L, et al. Features of 20 133 UK patients in hospital with covid-19 using the ISARIC WHO Clinical Characterisation Protocol: prospective observational cohort study. BMJ. 2020;369:m1985.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Boussarsar M, Thierry G, Jaber S, Roudot-Thoraval F, Lemaire F, Brochard L. Relationship between ventilatory settings and barotrauma in the acute respiratory distress syndrome. Intensive Care Med. 2002;28:406–13.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Papazian L, Aubron C, Brochard L, Chiche J-D, Combes A, Dreyfuss D, et al. Formal guidelines: management of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Ann Intensiv Care. 2019;9:69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gattinoni L, Coppola S, Cressoni M. COVID-19 does not lead to a “Typical. Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. 2020;201:1299–300.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Belletti A, Todaro G, Valsecchi G, Losiggio R, Palumbo D, Landoni G, et al. Barotrauma in Coronavirus Disease 2019 patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation: a systematic literature review. Crit Care Med. 2022;50:491–500.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Increased Incidence of Barotrauma in Patients with COVID-19 on Invasive. Mechanical Ventilation - PubMed. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32614258/. Accessed 4 Mar 2022.

  10. Gazivoda VP, Ibrahim M, Kangas-Dick A, Sun A, Silver M, Wiesel O. Outcomes of Barotrauma in critically ill COVID-19 patients with severe pneumonia. J Intensive Care Med. 2021;36:1176–83.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Palumbo D, Campochiaro C, Belletti A, Marinosci A, Dagna L, Zangrillo A, et al. Pneumothorax/pneumomediastinum in non-intubated COVID-19 patients: differences between first and second italian pandemic wave. Eur J Intern Med. 2021;88:144–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Mohan V, Tauseen RA. Spontaneous pneumomediastinum in COVID-19. BMJ Case Reports. 2020;13:e236519.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gøtzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The strengthening the reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. The Lancet. 2020;370:1453–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Vandenbunder B, Ehrmann S, Piagnerelli M, Sauneuf B, Serck N, Soumagne T, et al. Static compliance of the respiratory system in COVID-19 related ARDS: an international multicenter study. Crit Care. 2021;25:52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  15. Grimaldi D, Aissaoui N, Blonz G, Carbutti G, Courcelle R, Gaudry S, et al. Characteristics and outcomes of acute respiratory distress syndrome related to COVID-19 in belgian and french intensive care units according to antiviral strategies: the COVADIS multicentre observational study. Ann Intensiv Care. 2020;10:131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Courcelle R, Gaudry S, Serck N, Blonz G, Lascarrou JB, Grimaldi D et al. Neuromuscular blocking agents (NMBA) for COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: a multicenter observational study. Critical care (London, England). 2020;24:446.

  17. Lascarrou J-B, Gaultier A, Soumagne T, Serck N, Sauneuf B, Piagnerelli M, et al. Identifying clinical phenotypes in moderate to severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome related to COVID-19: the COVADIS Study. Front Med (Lausanne). 2021;8:632933.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Mongardon N, Piagnerelli M, Grimaldi D, Perrot B, Lascarrou JB. Impact of late administration of corticosteroids in COVID-19 ARDS. Intensive Care Med. 2020;:1–3.

  19. Ards Definition Task Force, Ranieri VM, Rubenfeld GD, Thompson BT, Ferguson ND, Caldwell E, et al. Acute respiratory distress syndrome: the Berlin definition. JAMA. 2012;307:2526–33.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J chronic Dis. 1987;40:373–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Vincent JL, Moreno R, Takala J, Willatts S, De Mendonça A, Bruining H, et al. The SOFA (Sepsis-related Organ failure Assessment) score to describe organ dysfunction/failure. On behalf of the Working Group on Sepsis-Related problems of the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine. Intensive Care Med. 1996;22:707–10.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Papazian L, Forel J-M, Gacouin A, Penot-Ragon C, Perrin G, Loundou A, et al. Neuromuscular blockers in early acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1107–16.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Guerin C, Reignier J, Richard JC, Beuret P, Gacouin A, Boulain T, et al. Prone positioning in severe acute respiratory distress syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2013;368:2159–68.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Villar J, Ferrando C, Martínez D, Ambrós A, Muñoz T, Soler JA, et al. Dexamethasone treatment for the acute respiratory distress syndrome: a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet Respiratory Medicine. 2020;8:267–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Early Neuromuscular Blockade in the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2019;380:1997–2008.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Writing Group for the Alveolar Recruitment for Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Trial (ART), Investigators, Cavalcanti AB, Suzumura ÉA, Laranjeira LN, Paisani D, de Damiani M. Effect of lung recruitment and titrated positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) vs low PEEP on mortality in patients with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA. 2017;318:1335–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Belletti A, Palumbo D, Zangrillo A, Fominskiy EV, Franchini S, Dell’Acqua A, et al. Predictors of Pneumothorax/Pneumomediastinum in mechanically ventilated COVID-19 patients. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2021;35:3642–51.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Pulmonary Barotrauma in COVID-19 Patients With ARDS on Invasive and Non-Invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation - Kartikeya Rajdev, Spanel AJ. Sean McMillan, Shubham Lahan, Brian Boer, Justin Birge, Meilinh Thi, 2021. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/08850666211019719. Accessed 5 Jun 2022.

  29. Udi J, Lang CN, Zotzmann V, Krueger K, Fluegler A, Bamberg F, et al. Incidence of Barotrauma in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia during prolonged invasive mechanical ventilation – a case-control study. J Intensive Care Med. 2021;36:477–83.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lemmers DHL, Abu Hilal M, Bnà C, Prezioso C, Cavallo E, Nencini N, et al. Pneumomediastinum and subcutaneous emphysema in COVID-19: barotrauma or lung frailty? ERJ Open Res. 2020;6:00385–2020.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Macklin MT, Macklin CC, Malignant interstitial emphysema of the lungs and mediastinum as an important, occult complication in many respiratory diseases and other conditions. An interpretation of the clinical literature in the light of laboratory experiment. Medicine. 1944;23:281–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Paternoster G, Belmonte G, Scarano E, Rotondo P, Palumbo D, Belletti A, et al. Macklin effect on baseline chest CT scan accurately predicts barotrauma in COVID-19 patients. Respir Med. 2022;197:106853.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Hillman K, Barotrauma, COVID-19. Intensive Care Med. 2022;48:376.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  34. Palumbo D, Zangrillo A, Belletti A, Guazzarotti G, Calvi MR, Guzzo F, et al. A radiological predictor for pneumomediastinum/pneumothorax in COVID-19 ARDS patients. J Crit Care. 2021;66:14–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Chiumello D, Busana M, Coppola S, Romitti F, Formenti P, Bonifazi M, et al. Physiological and quantitative CT-scan characterization of COVID-19 and typical ARDS: a matched cohort study. Intensive Care Med. 2020;46:2187–96.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  36. Mehta P, McAuley DF, Brown M, Sanchez E, Tattersall RS, Manson JJ. COVID-19: consider cytokine storm syndromes and immunosuppression. The Lancet. 2020;395:1033–4.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Yang T, Li Z, Jiang L, Xi X. Corticosteroid use and intensive care unit-acquired weakness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care. 2018;22:187.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Recovery Collaborative Group, Horby P, Lim WS, Emberson JR, Mafham M, Bell JL et al. Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19 - Preliminary Report. The New England journal of medicine. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2021436.

  39. Nishimoto K, Fujisawa T, Yoshimura K, Enomoto Y, Yasui H, Hozumi H, et al. Pneumothorax in connective tissue disease-associated interstitial lung disease. PLoS ONE. 2020;15:e0235624.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  40. Lavinio A, Ercole A, Battaglini D, Magnoni S, Badenes R, Taccone FS, et al. Safety profile of enhanced thromboprophylaxis strategies for critically ill COVID-19 patients during the first wave of the pandemic: observational report from 28 european intensive care units. Crit Care. 2021;25:155.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. Damiani E, Carsetti A, Casarotta E, Scorcella C, Domizi R, Adrario E, et al. Microvascular alterations in patients with SARS-COV-2 severe pneumonia. Ann Intensiv Care. 2020;10:60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Fan E, Beitler JR, Brochard L, Calfee CS, Ferguson ND, Slutsky AS, et al. COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: is a different approach to management warranted? Lancet Respir Med. 2020;8:816–21.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Vetrugno L, Castaldo N, Fantin A, Deana C, Cortegiani A, Longhini F, et al. Ventilatory associated Barotrauma in COVID-19 patients: A multicenter observational case control study (COVI-MIX-STUDY). Pulmonology. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pulmoe.2022.11.002.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Mariana Ismael at Castor EDC (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) for technical support in designing the electronic case-report form. We thank Antoinette Wolfe for assistance in preparing and reviewing the manuscript.

Funding

None.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Unité de soins intensifs, Clinique Saint Pierre, Ottignies, Belgium

    Nicolas Serck

  2. Intensive Care. CHU-Charleroi, Marie Curie, Université Libre de Brussels, 140, chaussée de Bruxelles, Charleroi, 6042, Belgium

    Michael Piagnerelli

  3. Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, Paris, France

    Jean Loup Augy

  4. Soins Intensifs, H.UB, Hôpital Erasme, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium

    Filippo Annoni & David Grimaldi

  5. Médecine Intensive Réanimation, CHU Nantes, 30 Boulevard Jean Monnet, Nantes Cedex 9, 44093, France

    Gregoire Ottavy & Jean-Baptiste Lascarrou

  6. Unité de soins intensifs, Centres Hospitaliers de Jolimont, La Louvière, Belgium

    Romain Courcelle

  7. Unité de soins intensifs, CHR Mons-Hainaut, Mons, Belgium

    Giuseppe Carbutti

  8. Unité de soins intensifs, Clinique Notre Dame de Grâce, Gosselies, Belgium

    Francois Lejeune

  9. Service de Médecine Intensive Réanimation, Unité de Sevrage Ventilatoire et Réhabilitation, Centre Hospitalier de Béthune, 27 Rue Delbecque, Beuvry, 62660, France

    Christophe Vinsonneau

  10. Réanimation - Médecine Intensive, Centre Hospitalier Public du Cotentin, Cherbourg-en-Cotentin, BP208, 50102, France

    Bertrand Sauneuf

  11. Réanimation polyvalente, Centre Hospitalier du pays d’Aix, Aix en Provence, France

    Laurent Lefebvre

  12. Unité de soins intensifs, CHU Dinant Godinne, site Dinant, Belgium

    Julien Higny

Authors
  1. Nicolas Serck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael Piagnerelli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jean Loup Augy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Filippo Annoni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gregoire Ottavy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Romain Courcelle
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Giuseppe Carbutti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Francois Lejeune
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Christophe Vinsonneau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Bertrand Sauneuf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Laurent Lefebvre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Julien Higny
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. David Grimaldi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Jean-Baptiste Lascarrou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

NS and JBL conceived and designed the study and drafted the manuscript. NS, DG, and JBL analyzed and interpreted the study data. All authors acquired study data, revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content, read and approved the final version of the manuscript, and agreed to its submission for publication. The corresponding author (JBL) and NS had full access to all the study data. Both authors take final responsibility for the integrity of the study and for the decision to submit the study report for publication.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jean-Baptiste Lascarrou.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was performed in accordance with Good Clinical Practices and the Declaration of Helsinki principles for ethical research. For Belgium, this study was approved by the ERASME University Hospital/Université Libre Bruxelles Ethics Committee (#P2020/253), which waived the need for informed consent. For France, the study did not need country-specific ethics committee approval, according to French law (#2018 − 155 dated 2018/05/03): approval by the Belgian ethics committee was sufficient. French law does not require informed consent for retrospective healthcare studies of de-identified data (#2018 − 155 dated 2018/05/03). Individual information about the study was delivered to each survivor. The study was reported to the French data protection authority (Commission Nationale de l’Informatique et des Libertés, CNIL, #2217488).

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

None.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

In memoriam of Dr Giuseppe Carbutti, our colleague.

The original online version of this article was revised: an error was indentified in the author name of Filippo Annoni.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Serck, N., Piagnerelli, M., Augy, J.L. et al. Barotrauma in COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome: retrospective analysis of the COVADIS prospective multicenter observational database. BMC Anesthesiol 23, 138 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-023-02093-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-023-02093-1

Keywords

BMC Anesthesiology

ISSN: 1471-2253

Contact us