In Silico Modeling of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: Pathophysiologic Insights and Potential Management Implications

Patients with coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome appear to present with at least two distinct phenotypes: severe hypoxemia with relatively well-preserved lung compliance and lung gas volumes (type 1) and a more conventional acute respiratory distress syndrome phenotype, displaying the typical characteristics of the “baby lung” (type 2). We aimed to test plausible hypotheses regarding the pathophysiologic mechanisms underlying coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome and to evaluate the resulting implications for ventilatory management.

Design:

We adapted a high-fidelity computational simulator, previously validated in several studies of acute respiratory distress syndrome, to: 1) develop quantitative insights into the key pathophysiologic differences between the coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome and the conventional acute respiratory distress syndrome and 2) assess the impact of different positive end-expiratory pressure, F io _2, and tidal volume settings.

Setting:

Interdisciplinary Collaboration in Systems Medicine Research Network.

Subjects:

The simulator was calibrated to represent coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients with both normal and elevated body mass indices undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation.

Interventions:

None.

Measurements and Main Results:

An acute respiratory distress syndrome model implementing disruption of hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction and vasodilation leading to hyperperfusion of collapsed lung regions failed to replicate clinical data on type 1 coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients. Adding mechanisms to reflect disruption of alveolar gas-exchange due to the effects of pneumonitis and heightened vascular resistance due to the emergence of microthrombi produced levels of ventilation perfusion mismatch and hypoxemia consistent with data from type 1 coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients, while preserving close-to-normal lung compliance and gas volumes. Atypical responses to positive end-expiratory pressure increments between 5 and 15 cm H ₂ O were observed for this type 1 coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome model across a range of measures: increasing positive end-expiratory pressure resulted in reduced lung compliance and no improvement in oxygenation, whereas mechanical power, driving pressure, and plateau pressure all increased. F io ₂ settings based on acute respiratory distress syndrome network protocols at different positive end-expiratory pressure levels were insufficient to achieve adequate oxygenation. Incrementing tidal volumes from 5 to 10 mL/kg produced similar increases in multiple indicators of ventilator-induced lung injury in the type 1 coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome model to those seen in a conventional acute respiratory distress syndrome model.

Conclusions:

Our model suggests that use of standard positive end-expiratory pressure/F io ₂ tables, higher positive end-expiratory pressure strategies, and higher tidal volumes may all be potentially deleterious in type 1 coronavirus disease 2019 acute respiratory distress syndrome patients, and that a highly personalized approach to treatment is advisable.