The Pathophysiology and Dangers of Silent Hypoxemia in COVID-19 Lung Injury

The ongoing coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has been unprecedented on many levels, not least of which are the challenges in understanding the pathophysiology of these new critically ill patients. One widely reported phenomenon is that of a profoundly hypoxemic patient with minimal to no dyspnea out of proportion to the extent of radiographic abnormality and change in lung compliance. This apparently unique presentation, sometimes called happy hypoxemia or hypoxia but better described as silent hypoxemia, has led to the speculation of underlying pathophysiological differences between COVID-19 lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) from other causes. We explore three proposed distinctive features of COVID-19 that likely bear on the genesis of silent hypoxemia, including differences in lung compliance, pulmonary vascular responses to hypoxia, and nervous system sensing and response to hypoxemia. In the context of known principles of respiratory physiology and neurobiology, we discuss whether these particular findings are due to direct viral effects or, equally plausible, are within the spectrum of typical ARDS pathophysiology and the wide range of hypoxic ventilatory and pulmonary vascular responses and dyspnea perception in healthy people. Comparisons between lung injury patterns in COVID-19 and other causes of ARDS are clouded by the extent and severity of this pandemic, which may underlie the description of new phenotypes, although our ability to confirm these phenotypes by more invasive and longitudinal studies is limited. However, given the uncertainty about anything unique in the pathophysiology of COVID-19 lung injury, there are no compelling pathophysiological reasons at present to support a therapeutic approach for these patients that is different from the proven standards of care in ARDS.

Automated summary

The unique presentation of COVID-19 lung injury has sparked speculation about underlying differences in lung compliance, pulmonary vascular responses, and nervous system sensing. However, there is currently no compelling evidence to support a distinct pathophysiological approach for these patients compared to traditional ARDS care.