• Richard H Kallet.
• Department of Anesthesia and Perioperative Care, University of California, San Francisco at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma Center, San Francisco, California. richkallet@gmail.com.
• Respir Care. 2021 Aug 1; 66 (8): 134113621341-1362.

AbstractCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) represents the greatest medical crisis encountered in the young history of critical care and respiratory care. During the early months of the pandemic, when little was known about the virus, the acute hypoxemic respiratory failure it caused did not appear to fit conveniently or consistently into our classification of ARDS. This not only re-ignited a half-century's long simmering debate over taxonomy, but also fueled similar debates over how PEEP and lung-protective ventilation should be titrated, as well as the appropriate role of noninvasive ventilation in ARDS. COVID-19 ignited other debates on emerging concepts such as ARDS phenotypes and patient self-inflicted lung injury from vigorous spontaneous breathing. Over a year later, these early perplexities have receded into the background without having been reviewed or resolved. With a full year of evidence having been published, this narrative review systematically analyzes whether COVID-19-associated respiratory failure is essentially ARDS, with perhaps a somewhat different course of presentation. This includes a review of the severity of hypoxemia and derangements in pulmonary mechanics, PEEP requirements, recruitment potential, ability to achieve lung-protective ventilation goals, duration of mechanical ventilation, associated mortality, and response to noninvasive ventilation. This paper also reviews the concepts of ARDS phenotypes and patient self-inflicted lung injury as these are crucial to understanding the contentious debate over the nature and management of COVID-19.Copyright © 2021 by Daedalus Enterprises.

14 keywords...

hide…