Adherence to protective mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 versus non-COVID-19-associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: Comparison between two prospective cohorts

To compare adherence to protective mechanical ventilation (MV) parameters in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) caused by COVID-19 with patients with ARDS from other etiologies.Multiple prospective cohort study.Two Brazilian cohorts of ARDS patients were evaluated. One with COVID-19 patients admitted to two Brazilian intensive care units (ICUs) in 2020 and 2021 (C-ARDS, n=282), the other with ARDS-patients from other etiologies admitted to 37 Brazilian ICUs in 2016 (NC-ARDS, n=120).ARDS patients under MV.None.Adherence to protective MV (tidal volume ≤8mL/kg PBW; plateau pressure ≤30cmH2O; and driving pressure ≤15cmH2O), adherence to each individual component of the protective MV, and the association between protective MV and mortality.Adherence to protective MV was higher in C-ARDS than in NC-ARDS patients (65.8% vs. 50.0%, p=0.005), mainly due to a higher adherence to driving pressure ≤15cmH2O (75.0% vs. 62.4%, p=0.02). Multivariable logistic regression showed that the C-ARDS cohort was independently associated with adherence to protective MV. Among the components of the protective MV, only limiting driving pressure was independently associated with lower ICU mortality.Higher adherence to protective MV in patients with C-ARDS was secondary to higher adherence to limiting driving pressure. Additionally, lower driving pressure was independently associated with lower ICU mortality, which suggests that limiting exposure to driving pressure may improve survival in these patients.