Skip to main content
Download PDF

Diaphragm ultrasound evaluation during weaning from mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 patients: a pragmatic, cross-section, multicenter study

Respiratory Research volume 23, Article number: 210 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

Diaphragmatic dysfunction is a major factor responsible for weaning failure in patients that underwent prolonged invasive mechanical ventilation for acute severe respiratory failure from COVID-19. This study hypothesizes that ultrasound measured diaphragmatic thickening fraction (DTF) could provide corroborating information for weaning COVID-19 patients from mechanical ventilation.

Methods

This was an observational, pragmatic, cross-section, multicenter study in 6 Italian intensive care units. DTF was assessed in COVID-19 patients undergoing weaning from mechanical ventilation from 1st March 2020 to 30th June 2021. Primary aim was to evaluate whether DTF is a predictive factor for weaning failure.

Results

Fifty-seven patients were enrolled, 25 patients failed spontaneous breathing trial (44%). Median length of invasive ventilation was 14 days (IQR 7–22). Median DTF within 24 h since the start of weaning was 28% (IQR 22–39%), RASS score (− 2 vs − 2; p = 0.031); Kelly-Matthay score (2 vs 1; p = 0.002); inspiratory oxygen fraction (0.45 vs 0.40; p = 0.033). PaO2/FiO2 ratio was lower (176 vs 241; p = 0.032) and length of intensive care stay was longer (27 vs 16.5 days; p = 0.025) in patients who failed weaning. The generalized linear regression model did not select any variables that could predict weaning failure. DTF was correlated with pH (RR 1.56 × 1027; p = 0.002); Kelly-Matthay score (RR 353; p < 0.001); RASS (RR 2.11; p = 0.003); PaO2/FiO2 ratio (RR 1.03; p = 0.05); SAPS2 (RR 0.71; p = 0.005); hospital and ICU length of stay (RR 1.22 and 0.79, respectively; p < 0.001 and p = 0.004).

Conclusions

DTF in COVID-19 patients was not predictive of weaning failure from mechanical ventilation, and larger studies are needed to evaluate it in clinical practice further.

Registered: ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT05019313, 24 August 2021).

Background

Interstitial pneumonia and adult respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are severe COVID-19 complications that lead to intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Mortality remains higher than 30%, especially in non-vaccinated individuals that develop severe ARDS [1,2,3]. Initial COVID-19 interstitial pneumonia primarily shows alveolar-capillary shunting without clinically relevant respiratory signs (silent hypoxemia). However, as the infection progresses, so does the involvement of lung parenchyma, outlining a more severe clinical picture (manifest hypoxemia). It includes increasing elastance, right-left shunting and lung de-recruitment ultimately requiring intensive care admission, sedation, pronation, and muscle relaxation to reach adequate gas exchanges [4]. These patients require prolonged mechanical ventilation, often longer than 2–3 weeks, potentially inducing diaphragmatic dysfunction that could impact ventilatory support duration and weaning outcome [5]. Ultrasounds represent a non-invasive bedside approach to evaluate diaphragmatic thickening. This field has rapidly grown in recent years, with many publications concerning non-COVID-19 patients. The expression of transdiaphragmatic pressure, in terms of diaphragmatic thickening fraction (DTF), indicates muscular contractility. Goligher et al. first described the relationship between changes in transdiaphragmatic pressure and DTF in healthy subjects [6]. Diaphragmatic dysfunction had already been documented before a possible correlation between diaphragmatic dysfunction and weaning failure from mechanical ventilation emerged in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Although it is known that diaphragmatic force is mainly preserved or improved in the first phases of COVID-19 infection, some patients have shown early dysfunction in spontaneous breathing [7,8,9]. However, only few studies focused on diaphragmatic function during weaning from mechanical ventilation in these patients. This study evaluates the role of diaphragmatic dysfunction, as assessed by DTF at the beginning of weaning from mechanical ventilation, and weaning failure in COVID-19 patients. The aim of this study was that the DTF value could be a potential predictive factor of weaning success.

Methods

This was an observational, pragmatic, cross-section, multicenter study. The study was conducted in 6 Italian ICUs as Udine, Ferrara, Ravenna, Pisa, Turin and Milan, from 1st March 2020 to 30th June 2021. Every center’s Ethical Committee Board approved the study following local guidelines for ethical standards and good clinical practice. Each principal investigator was responsible for obtaining informed consent, in accordance with hospital privacy protocols during the emergency, local rules, and institutional regulations. All ethic committees’ approvals are added in the dedicated section at the end of the article. The study was registered at ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT05019313, 24 August 2021) and observed the STROBE guidelines for an observational study.

Inclusion criteria were as follows: age > 18 years, admission to a COVID-19 ICU with hypoxemic respiratory failure (defined as PaO2 < 70 mmHg or PaO2/FiO2 < 150), start of weaning from mechanical ventilation, defined as the ability to maintain respiratory stability (no dyspnea, respiratory rate < 25/min, percutaneous oxygen saturation (SpO2) ≥ 96%) with mechanical ventilation in pressure support mode at standardized settings (pressure support of 8 cmH2O, PEEP 5 cmH2O, and inspired fraction of oxygen (FiO2) < 0.5). Exclusion criteria were: being non-cooperative (Kelly-Matthay score ≥ 5) or Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) ≥  + 2, participation refusal, tracheostomy, unstable clinical conditions or multiple organ failure (> 2 organs). Weaning failure was defined as failure to pass the spontaneous-breathing trial or the need for re-intubation within 48 h following extubation. [10, 11] DTF was evaluated within 24 h since the start of weaning. DTF was assessed for the right hemidiaphragm, using a linear probe to identify a muscular layer between two hyperechoic lines, the pleura and peritoneum, superficial to the liver, with patients in supine position with the trunk elevated 10°–15°. In all patients, DTF was calculated while patients were ventilated with pressure support ventilation, with standardized settings (8 cmH2O pressure support, 5 cmH2O positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), FiO2 < 0.5) and hemodynamic stability. Measurements were obtained by employing instrumentations available in the respective ICUs. DTF was calculated using M-mode imaging, maximal diaphragm thickness during inspiration (Tdi, pi), minus diaphragm thickness at end-expiration (Tdi,ee), divided by Tdi,ee and multiplied by 100. Three consecutive measures were obtained, and the mean value was recorded. We also collected Simplified Acute Physiology Score 2 (SAPS2); RASS; Kelly-Matthay score; the systolic and diastolic arterial pressure; the heart rate; the respiratory rate; the body temperature; the base excess; non-invasive ventilation trial before invasive mechanical ventilation and its duration; invasive mechanical ventilation duration; ICU and hospital length of stay.

End-points

The primary end-point was to verify if the DTF predicts weaning success/failure from mechanical ventilation. The secondary end-point was to analyze the co-variables correlated with DTF values.

Sample size estimation

We assumed a priori a prevalence of diaphragmatic dysfunction of 42.5% [12]. To achieve the adequate prevalence within this study with a two-sided 95% confidence interval and a maximum accuracy error of 15%, 38 patients will be needed. However, considering a drop out of 20% due to the COVID-19 environment problem in data acquisition, we estimate to enrol a minimum of 45 subjects.

Statistical analysis

Described variables were recorded as median [IQR] for continuous variables and frequencies (%) for categorical variables. Study population was divided according to weaning success or failure. After data distribution was verified, group comparison was executed using Mann-Withney test. Chi-squared test or Fisher's exact test were used for categorical variables. A Benjamini & Hochberg correction for the multiplicity of the p-value was considered. P-values ≤ 0.05 were considered statistically significant. A generalized linear regression model was adopted to detect variables correlated with weaning failure. A multivariable linear regression model was applied to identify variables related to DTF. Predictive variables were selected by carrying out a stepwise backward method, which eliminated less predictive variables until the most predictive model was achieved. Further post-hoc sub-analyses were carried out to analyse the behaviour of certain subgroups within the population. Statistical calculations were performed using the R-CRAN platform.

Results

Fifty-seven patients admitted to participating ICUs from March 2020 to June 2021 were enrolled in the study. The main characteristics of the study population are illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1 Study population characteristics and group comparison between patients weaned successfully and unsuccessfully
Full size table

Median age was 65 years (IQR 56–71); 42 patients (74%) were male. Forty-six (81%) patients underwent a trial of non-invasive ventilation (NIV) before intubation (duration: 15 h; IQR 3–36). Median length of invasive ventilation was 14 days (IQR 7–22). Median DTF at weaning start (or at SBT start) was 28.0 (IQR 21.7–38.9).

Comparison between weaning success and failure

DTF was not different between weaning success and weaning failure groups (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

DTF comparison between successfully weaned patients and those who failed weaning from mechanical ventilation. Although DTF medians are not significantly different (28% vs 27.6%; p = 0.612), higher outliers are found in patients who failed weaning

Full size image

The following parameters were statistically different between groups: RASS (− 2 vs − 2; p = 0.031); Kelly-Matthay score (2 vs 1; p = 0.002); inspiratory oxygen fraction (0.45 vs 0.40; p = 0.033), PaO2/FiO2 ratio (176 vs 241; p = 0.032) and length of ICU stay (27 vs 16.5 days; p = 0.025) (Table 1). The generalized linear regression model did not identify any variable independently associated with weaning failure. DTF distribution according to PaO2/FiO2 values in patients who failed weaning showed a rough U-shaped trend, in which extreme DTF values were associated with the lowest PaO2/FiO2 (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2
figure 2

DTF distribution, with respect to PaO2/FiO2, in successfully weaned patients (in blue) and unsuccessfully (in red). The trend was obtained through a mixed linear regression model, which demonstrates a U-shaped trend in DTF values, lowest PaO2/FiO2 values at both extremes, for patients who failed weaning

Full size image

In the regression model performed to identify variables correlated to DTF, pH (RR 1.56 × 1027; p = 0.002); Kelly-Matthay score (RR 353; p < 0.001); RASS (RR 2.11; p = 0.003); PaO2/FiO2 ratio (RR 1.03; p = 0.05); SAPS2 (RR 0.71; p = 0.005); hospital and ICU length of stay (RR 1.22 and 0.79, respectively; p < 0.001 and p = 0.004) were all significantly correlated. Subgroup post-hoc analysis showed that male patients had greater DTF values than female patients, at equal disease severity (SAPS2 score) (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Comparison of SAPS-2 scores (x-axis) and DTF values (y-axis), divided by gender (females on the left and males on the right) and PaO2/FiO2 ratio subclasses (highest values in green, lowest in red). As shown in the lower right quadrants of the graphs (highest SAPS-2 scores) DTF values are higher in males, compared to females, for each PaO2/FiO2 subclass

Full size image

Discussion

The study evaluated a possible correlation between weaning failure and DTF values and other potential predictors, in critically ill COVID-19 patients. DTF was found to be unrelated to weaning outcome. In agreement with current literature, the present work highlighted a very high rate of weaning failure, around 40%, requiring longer ICU stay and sedation. Observing gathered data, COVID-19 is likely implicated in determining an initial thickening diaphragm and ultimately lung parenchyma fibrosis [13]. Poulard et al. have stressed how, although DTF ultrasound evaluation has recently become popular, its correlation with transdiaphragmatic pressure (measured by invasive catheters to record esophageal and gastric pressure) is widely variable, especially in patients subjected to mechanical ventilation [14]. It is reasonable to hypothesize that extremes—hypertrophy and atrophy—correlate with a more pronounced respiratory dysfunction [15, 16]. Similarly, ventilatory support, either above or below patient’s needs, might lead to diaphragmatic dysfunction [17]. In addition, patient’s basal diaphragmatic strength could play a determining role in the development of dysfunction, further complicating achievement of a standardized ultrasound method [18, 19].

Other factors related to DTF are degree of sedation (RASS score) and length of hospital stay, which are both linearly implicated. On the contrary, PaO2/FiO2 shows a very weak correlation. Even though pathophysiological mechanisms of parenchymal damage could be involved, the study data seems to reflect the U-shaped pattern previously highlighted: PaO2/FiO2 values show a linear correlation with the diaphragm thickening capacity within a range, beyond which at the low end of PaO2/FiO2, this diaphragm thickening capacity can be almost completely abolished or, on the contrary, excessively expressed (the result of an excess of respiratory effort).

A contributing mechanism to diaphragmatic dysfunction is pronounced respiratory acidosis, which could both be cause and consequence of diaphragmatic thinning; namely, depletion of energy substrates favors a hyperlactatemia that may not be sufficient to support required muscular effort [20]. However, the diaphragm may be the major contributor to lactate production, making the patient prone to acidosis. In our study, pH directly correlated with DTF, a possible expression of respiratory alkalosis. Conversely, the reduction in pH could result from the diaphragmatic metabolic debt condition.

Fever due to viral infection can determine diaphragmatic dysfunction [21] through a “cytokine storm”, which in turn may contribute to muscle catabolism [22]. In a cluster analysis of 55 patients undergoing mechanical ventilation, Vivier et al. detected a linear correlation between PaCO2 and DTF [23]. The authors hypothesize that increased DTF results in increased respiratory workload in spontaneously breathing patients. Conversely, the use of sedation, as occurs in patients admitted to ICUs, could lead to muscle deconditioning—similarly to global ICU-acquired weakness—and may be responsible for increased hospital LOS and weaning failure. However, special attention should be paid when labeling diaphragmatic dysfunction as a predictor of ICU-acquired weakness. Jung et al. have shown that, although diaphragmatic dysfunction is frequent in patients with ICU-acquired weakness, about half of patients with the latter condition undergo successful extubation [24].

A recent study by Cammarota et al. found that prone position in spontaneously breathing patients, though supported by non-invasive ventilation, caused an increase in DTF [25]. Authors suggest that the correlation between DTF and ventilation efficacy is more complex than previously thought. The mere evaluation of DTF per se does not account for improvements in ventilation. How far DTF is to be pursued as an expression of greater muscle strength or, vice versa, as a negative expression of increased respiratory workload, has yet to be established. A recent meta-analysis of the diagnostic accuracy of diaphragmatic ultrasound to predict weaning outcome showed low sensitivity [26]. Furthermore, authors highlighted a wide heterogeneity of the studies considered which suggests the extent of the effect of other variables, not directly measured in different subpopulations, can contribute to weaning outcome [27].

Lastly, as hypothesis-generator, the present study shows that male patients, compared to female patients, have higher DTF values for the same severity of disease (SAPS2 score and PaO2/FiO2 ratio). However, what makes females prone to particularly severe forms of diaphragmatic dysfunction in the course of COVID-19 is yet to be determined.

Limitations

Study limitations were mainly related to conditions in which it was performed: patient enrollment, data collection and practical methods reflect, in fact, the course of the pandemic. Standardized ventilation criteria before weaning were not established amongst participating centers. Though operators involved in the study are considered experts, different levels of proficiency may result in data collection discrepancies. In order to maximize the inter-observer reproducibility, we have disseminated video tutorials prior the enrollment [28]. Given the pragmatic nature of the study the adopted definition of weaning failure was restricted to an easily applicable and contextualizable definition in all participating centers.

Conclusions

DTF ultrasound evaluation is a technique that can be performed at the patient’s bedside, but it does not predict weaning outcome in COVID-19 patients. Further studies with specific endpoints need to be conducted before the role of DTF in weaning from ventilation can be defined, even in patients without COVID-19 respiratory failure.

Availability of data and materials

The datasets from this study are available from the corresponding author upon request.

Abbreviations

DTF:

Diaphragmatic thickening fraction

ARDS:

Adult respiratory distress syndrome

RASS:

Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale

PEEP:

Positive end-expiratory pressure

Tdi, Pi:

Thickness during inspiration

Tdi, Ee:

Thickness at end-expiration

SAPS2:

Simplified Acute Physiology Score

References

  1. Grasselli G, Zangrillo A, Zanella A, Antonelli M, Cabrini L, Castelli A, et al. Baseline characteristics and outcomes of 1591 patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 admitted to ICUs of the Lombardy Region, Italy. JAMA. 2020;323:1574–81. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.5394.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Ashish A, Unsworth A, Martindale J, Sundar R, Kavuri K, Sedda L, et al. CPAP management of COVID-19 respiratory failure: a first quantitative analysis from an inpatient service evaluation. BMJ Open Respir Res. 2020;7(1): e000692. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2020-000692.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Rosenthal N, Cao Z, Gundrum J, Sianis J, Safo S. Risk factors associated with in-hospital mortality in a US National Sample of Patients with COVID-19. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(12): e2029058. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.29058.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Gattinoni L, Chiumello D, Caironi P, Busana M, Romitti F, Brazzi L, et al. COVID-19 pneumonia: different respiratory treatments for different phenotypes? Intensive Care Med. 2020;46:1099–102. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-020-06033-2.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Corradi F, Vetrugno L, Orso D, Bove T, Schreiber A, Boero E, et al. Diaphragmatic thickening fraction as a potential predictor of response to continuous positive airway pressure ventilation in COVID-19 pneumonia: a single-center pilot study. Respir Physiol Neurobiol. 2021;284: 103585. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resp.2020.103585.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Goligher EC, Dres M, Fan E, Rubenfeld GD, Scales DC, Herridge MS, et al. Mechanical ventilation–induced diaphragm atrophy strongly impacts clinical outcomes. Am J Respir Crit Care. 2018;197(2):204–13. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201703-0536OC.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. van Steveninck AL, Imming LM. Diaphragm dysfunction prior to intubation in a patient with COVID-19 pneumonia; assessment by point of care ultrasound and potential implications for patient monitoring. Respir Med Case Rep. 2020;31: 101284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmcr.2020.101284.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Pivetta E, Cara I, Paglietta G, Scategni V, Labarile G, Tizzani M, et al. Diaphragmatic point-of-care ultrasound in COVID-19 patients in the emergency department—a proof-of-concept study. J Clin Med. 2021;10(22):5291. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10225291.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Corradi F, Isirdi A, Malacarne P, Santori G, Barbieri G, Romei C, et al. Low diaphragm muscle mass predicts adverse outcome in patients hospitalized for COVID-19 pneumonia: an exploratory pilot study. Minerva Anestesiol. 2021;87:432–8. https://doi.org/10.23736/S0375-9393.21.15129-6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Boles JM, Bion J, Connors A, Herridge M, Marsh B, Melot C, et al. Weaning from mechanical ventilation. Eur Respir J. 2007;29:1033–56. https://doi.org/10.1183/09031936.00010206.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Schmidt GA, Girard TD, Kress JP, Morris PE, Ouellette DR, Alhazzani W, et al. ATS/CHEST Ad Hoc Committee on Liberation from Mechanical Ventilation in Adults. Official Executive Summary of an American Thoracic Society/American College of Chest Physicians Clinical Practice Guideline: Liberation from Mechanical Ventilation in Critically Ill Adults. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;195:115–9. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.201610-2076ST.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Barbariol F, Deana C, Guadagnin GM, Cammarota G, Vetrugno L, Bassi F. Ultrasound diaphragmatic excursion during non-invasive ventilation in ICU: a prospective observational study. Acta Biomed. 2021;92(3): e2021269. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v92i3.11609.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  13. Roozeman JP, Mazzinari G, Serpa Neto A, Hollmann MW, Paulus F, Schultz MJ, et al. Prognostication using SpO2/FiO2 in invasively ventilated ICU patients with ARDS due to COVID-19—insights from the PRoVENT-COVID study. J Crit Care. 2021;68:31–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrc.2021.11.009.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  14. Poulard T, Bachasson D, Fossé Q, Niérat MC, Hogrel JY, Demoule A, et al. Poor correlation between diaphragm thickening fraction and transdiaphragmatic pressure in mechanically ventilated patients and healthy subjects. Anesthesiology. 2022;136:162–75. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000004042.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Dres M, Goligher EC, Dubé BP, Morawiec E, Dangers L, Reuter D, et al. Diaphragm function and weaning from mechanical ventilation: an ultrasound and phrenic nerve stimulation clinical study. Ann Intensive Care. 2018;8(1):53. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13613-018-0401-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Zambon M, Greco M, Bocchino S, Cabrini L, Beccaria PF, Zangrillo A. Assessment of diaphragmatic dysfunction in the critically ill patient with ultrasound: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med. 2017;43:29–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-016-4524-z.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Somhorst P, Gommers D, Endeman H. Advanced respiratory monitoring in mechanically ventilated patients with coronavirus 2019-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCC.0000000000000905.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Spadaro S, Grasso S, Mauri T, Dalla Corte F, Alvisi V, Ragazzi R, Cricca V, et al. Can diaphragmatic ultrasonography performed during the T-tube trial predict weaning failure? The role of diaphragmatic rapid shallow breathing index. Crit Care. 2016;20(1):305. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-016-1479-y.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Spiesshoefer J, Herkenrath S, Henke C, Langenbruch L, Schneppe M, Randerath W, et al. Evaluation of respiratory muscle strength and diaphragm ultrasound: normative values, theoretical considerations, and practical recommendations. Respiration. 2020;99:369–81. https://doi.org/10.1159/000506016.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Goligher EC, Dres M, Patel BK, Sahetya SK, Beitler JR, Telias I, et al. Lung- and Diaphragm-Protective Ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020;202(7):950–61. https://doi.org/10.1164/rccm.202003-0655CP.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. McCool FD, Tzelepis GE. Dysfunction of the diaphragm. N Engl J Med. 2012;366:932–42. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra1007236.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Lyu Q, Wen Y, Zhang X, Addinsall AB, Cacciani N, Larsson L. Multi-omics reveals age-related differences in the diaphragm response to mechanical ventilation: a pilot study. Skelet Muscle. 2021;11(1):11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13395-021-00267-4.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Vivier E, Roche-Campo F, Brochard L, Mekontso DA. Determinants of diaphragm thickening fraction during mechanical ventilation: an ancillary study of a randomized trial. Eur Respir J. 2017;50(3):1700783. https://doi.org/10.1183/13993003.00783-2017.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Jung B, Moury PH, Mahul M, de Jong A, Galia F, Prades A, et al. Diaphragmatic dysfunction in patients with ICU-acquired weakness and its impact on extubation failure. Intensive Care Med. 2016;42:853–61. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-015-4125-2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Cammarota G, Rossi E, Vitali L, Simone R, Sannipoli T, Anniciello F, et al. Effect of awake prone position on diaphragmatic thickening fraction in patients assisted by non-invasive ventilation for hypoxemic acute respiratory failure related to novel coronavirus disease. Crit Care. 2021;25(1):305. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-021-03735-x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  26. Le Neindre A, Philippart F, Luperto M, Wormser J, Morel-Sapene J, Aho SL, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of diaphragm ultrasound to predict weaning outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Nurs Stud. 2021;117: 103890. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2021.103890.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Llamas-Álvarez AM, Tenza-Lozano EM, Latour-Pérez J. Diaphragm and lung ultrasound to predict weaning outcome: systematic review and meta-analysis. Chest. 2017;152:1140–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2017.08.028.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Dugar S, Mehkri O, Li M, Hastings A, Siuba MT, Vashisht R, et al. Validation of a web-based platform for online training in point-of-care diaphragm ultrasound. ATS Scholar. 2022. https://doi.org/10.34197/ats-scholar.2021-0057BR(webaccessed12/01/2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

No funding was received for this study.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Medical, Oral and Biotechnological Sciences, University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy

    Luigi Vetrugno & Salvatore Maurizio Maggiore

  2. Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care Medicine and Emergency, SS. Annunziata Hospital, Via dei Vestini, 66100, Chieti, Italy

    Luigi Vetrugno

  3. Department of Medicine (DAME), University of Udine, Udine, Italy

    Daniele Orso, Francesco Meroi, Natascia D’Andrea & Tiziana Bove

  4. Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine, ASUFC University Hospital of Udine, Udine, Italy

    Daniele Orso, Francesco Meroi, Natascia D’Andrea, Tiziana Bove & Cristian Deana

  5. Department of Surgical, Medical, Molecular Pathology and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy

    Francesco Corradi, Samuele Ferrari & Francesco Forfori

  6. Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Ravenna, Italy

    Gianluca Zani & Maurizio Fusari

  7. Department of Morphology, Surgery and Experimental Medicine, Intensive Care Unit, University of Ferrara, Sant’Anna Hospital, Ferrara, Italy

    Savino Spadaro

  8. Department of Medicine and Surgery, Università degli Studi di Perugia, Perugia, Italy

    Gianmaria Cammarota & Edoardo De Robertis

  9. Anestesia and Intensive Care Service 2, Azienda Ospedaliera di Perugia, Perugia, Italy

    Gianmaria Cammarota & Edoardo De Robertis

  10. Department of Anesthesia and Intensive Care, Niguarda Hospital, Piazza dell’Ospedale Maggiore 3, 20162, Milano, Italy

    Marcello Guarnieri & Margherita Ajuti

  11. Intensive Care Unit, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A. Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy

    Domenico Luca Grieco

  12. Dipartimento di Scienze Chirurgiche, Università degli Studi di Torino, Turin, Italy

    Enrico Boero

  13. Department of Medicine, Surgery and Neuroscience, Anesthesia and Intensive Care Unit, University of Siena, Siena, Italy

    Federico Franchi & Sabino Scolletta

  14. Department of Innovative Technologies in Medicine and Dentistry, Gabriele d’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Chieti, Italy

    Salvatore Maurizio Maggiore

Authors
  1. Luigi Vetrugno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniele Orso
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Francesco Corradi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Gianluca Zani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Savino Spadaro
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Francesco Meroi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Natascia D’Andrea
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Tiziana Bove
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Gianmaria Cammarota
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Edoardo De Robertis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Samuele Ferrari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Marcello Guarnieri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Margherita Ajuti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Maurizio Fusari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Domenico Luca Grieco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Cristian Deana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Enrico Boero
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Federico Franchi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  19. Sabino Scolletta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  20. Salvatore Maurizio Maggiore
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  21. Francesco Forfori
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

LV, DO, FC, GZ, and SS designed the concept of the study. FM, ND, TB, GC, EDR, SF, MG, MA, MF, EB, GZ, SS, FC, and CD conducted the study and performed the data acquisition. LV, SMM, FF, SS, DLG, EDR and FF assessed the quality of the study and performed the analysis interpretation. LV, DO, FC, SS, GC, SMM and FF wrote the manuscript, and the other authors made substantial revisions and edits. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Luigi Vetrugno.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The institutional review board of each participating hospital approved the study. Regional Ethics Committee of Udine (Protocol no. approval CEUR-2020-Os-087), Ethics Committee of ASL “Città di Torino” (Protocol no. approval 0000594/A.08/2020), Ethics Committee of Milano AREA 3 (Protocol no. approval 279-27052020), Regional Ethics Committee for Clinical Sperimentation of Tuscany Region (Protocol no. approval 19161), Ethics Committee of Emilia-Romagna (Protocol no. approval C.E.ROM 1449-2021), Ethics Committee of Ferrara (Protocol no. approval AOU_FE 0018894). Written informed consent was obtained following the local rules in Udine, Ferrara, Milano and Pisa. Informed consent was waived in Ravenna and Torino. The study was performed in accordance with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

All co-authors have provided consent for publications.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

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

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

Vetrugno, L., Orso, D., Corradi, F. et al. Diaphragm ultrasound evaluation during weaning from mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 patients: a pragmatic, cross-section, multicenter study. Respir Res 23, 210 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12931-022-02138-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12931-022-02138-y

Keywords

Respiratory Research

ISSN: 1465-993X

Contact us