CARDS vs ARDS – implications for respiratory support
Keywords:
acute respiratory distress syndrome, ARDS, COVID-19-associated ARDS, CARDSAbstract
Based on a handful of early reports and anecdotal experience, experts hypothesised that severe COVID-19 pneumonia was clinically different from the more classical presentation of the acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), despite fulfilling the Berlin definition. The most striking difference noted was the dissociation of the severity of hypoxaemia and the compliance of the respiratory system (Crs). It was proposed that patients were presenting along a time-related spectrum with two distinct phenotypes at either end. Initially, type ‘L” is characterised by low elastance (high Crs), low lung weight, low right-to-left shunt, and low lung recruitment potential. With time, patients would eventually become type “H” with high elastance (low Crs), high lung weight (oedema), high right-to-left shunt with greater potential for lung recruitment and thus resemble classical ARDS. Subsequently, numerous studies have examined the mechanics and gas exchange of COVID-19 patients and have found no consistent relationships between hypoxaemia, recruitability and compliance. There was no convincing evidence found of a time-related spectrum of disease. In conclusion, despite significant variability, COVID-19 produces a clinical picture largely consistent with classical ARDS. Furthermore, the outcomes using traditional lung protective strategies have been acceptable and do not warrant change at this stage.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
By submitting manuscripts to SAJAA, authors of original articles are assigning copyright to the SA Society of Anaesthesiologists. Authors may use their own work after publication without written permission, provided they acknowledge the original source. Individuals and academic institutions may freely copy and distribute articles published in SAJAA for educational and research purposes without obtaining permission.
The work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial Works 4.0 South Africa License. The SAJAA does not hold itself responsible for statements made by the authors.