Airway pressure release ventilation for lung protection in acute respiratory distress syndrome: an alternative way to recruit the lungs

VENO-VENOUS EXTRACORPOREAL MEMBRANE OXYGENATION IMPROVES OUTCOMES IN TRAUMA PATIENTS SUFFERING RESPIRATORY FAILURE

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VV ECMO) improves hypoxemia and carbon dioxide clearance in patients with severe respiratory derangements. A greater understanding of the potential benefits of VV ECMO in trauma patients could lead to broader adoption. We hypothesize that trauma patients who receive VV ECMO have improved mortality outcomes when compared to those receiving conventional ventilator management given the rapid stabilization VV ECMO promotes. Methods: We performed a single-center, propensity score-matched cohort study. All trauma patients from January 1, 2014, to October 30, 2023, who were placed on VV ECMO or who would have met institutional guidelines for VV ECMO but were managed with conventional ventilator strategies were matched 1:1. The primary outcome analysis was survival at hospital discharge. Significance was defined as P < 0.05. Results: Eighty-one trauma VV ECMO patients and 128 patients who received conventional management met criteria for inclusion. After matching, VV ECMO and conventional treatment cohort characteristics were similar in age and mechanism of injury. Matched ISS, SI, lactate levels, and frequency of traumatically brain injured were also similar. Finally, respiratory parameters including preintervention, pH, partial pressure of carbon dioxide, lactate levels, and oxygen saturation were similar between matched groups. VV ECMO patients had higher survival rates at discharge when compared to the matched conventional treatment group (70% vs. 41%, P < 0.001). Corresponding hazard ratio for VV ECMO use was 0.31 (95% CI 0.18-0.52; P < 0.001). The odds ratio of mortality in matched trauma patients who receive VV ECMO versus conventional treatment was 0.29 (95% CI 0.14-0.58; P < 0.001). Conclusion: VV ECMO may represent a safe, alternative treatment approach for appropriately screened trauma patients with acute respiratory failure; however, further studies are warranted.

Comparison of airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) versus biphasic positive airway pressure (BIPAP) ventilation in COVID-19 associated ARDS using transpulmonary pressure monitoring

BACKGROUND

APRV has been used for ARDS in the past. Little is known about the risk of ventilator- induced lung- injury (VILI) in APRV vs. BIPAP in the management of in COVID19-associated ARDS (CARDS). This study aimed to compare transpulmonary pressures (TPP) in APRV vs. BIPAP in CARDS in regard to lung protective ventilator settings.

METHODS

This retrospective, monocentric cohort study (ethical approval: 21-1553) assessed all adult ICU- patients with CARDS who were ventilated with BIPAP vs. APRV and monitored with TPP from 03/2020 to 10/2021. Ventilator-settings / -pressures, TPP, hemodynamic and arterial blood gas parameters were compared in both modes.

RESULTS

20 non- spontaneously breathing patients could be included in the study: Median TPPendexpiratory was lower / negative in APRV (-1.20mbar; IQR - 4.88 / +4.53) vs. positive in BIPAP (+ 3.4mbar; IQR + 1.95 / +8.57; p < .01). Median TPPendinspiratory did not differ. In APRV, mean tidal- volume per body- weight (7.05 ± 1.28 vs. 5.03 ± 0.77 ml; p < .01) and mean airway- pressure (27.08 ± 1.67 vs. 22.68 ± 2.62mbar; p < .01) were higher. There was no difference in PEEP, peak-, plateau- or driving- pressure, compliance, oxygenation and CO2- removal between both modes.

CONCLUSION

Despite higher tidal- volumes / airway-pressures in APRV vs. BIPAP, TPPendinspiratory was not increased. However, in APRV median TPPendexpiratory was negative indicating an elevated risk of occult atelectasis in APRV- mode in CARDS. Therefore, TPP- monitoring could be a useful tool for monitoring a safe application of APRV- mode in CARDS.

Pressure control plus spontaneous ventilation versus volume assist-control ventilation in acute respiratory distress syndrome. A randomised clinical trial

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of a pressure-controlled strategy allowing non-synchronised unassisted spontaneous ventilation (PC-SV) to a conventional volume assist-control strategy (ACV) on the outcome of patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

METHODS

Open-label randomised clinical trial in 22 intensive care units (ICU) in France. Seven hundred adults with moderate or severe ARDS (PaO2/FiO2 < 200 mmHg) were enrolled from February 2013 to October 2018. Patients were randomly assigned to PC-SV (n = 348) or ACV (n = 352) with similar objectives of tidal volume (6 mL/kg predicted body weight) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). Paralysis was stopped after 24 h and sedation adapted to favour patients' spontaneous ventilation. The primary endpoint was in-hospital death from any cause at day 60.

RESULTS

Hospital mortality [34.6% vs 33.5%, p = 0.77, risk ratio (RR) = 1.03 (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-1.27)], 28-day mortality, as well as the number of ventilator-free days and organ failure-free days at day 28 did not differ between PC-SV and ACV groups. Patients in the PC-SV group received significantly less sedation and neuro-muscular blocking agents than in the ACV group. A lower proportion of patients required adjunctive therapy of hypoxemia (including prone positioning) in the PC-SV group than in the ACV group [33.1% vs 41.3%, p = 0.03, RR = 0.80 (95% CI 0.66-0.98)]. The incidences of pneumothorax and refractory hypoxemia did not differ between the groups.

CONCLUSIONS

A strategy based on PC-SV mode that favours spontaneous ventilation reduced the need for sedation and adjunctive therapies of hypoxemia but did not significantly reduce mortality compared to ACV with similar tidal volume and PEEP levels.

Inconsistent Methods Used to Set Airway Pressure Release Ventilation in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis

Airway pressure release ventilation (APRV) is a protective mechanical ventilation mode for patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) that theoretically may reduce ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) and ARDS-related mortality. However, there is no standard method to set and adjust the APRV mode shown to be optimal. Therefore, we performed a meta-regression analysis to evaluate how the four individual APRV settings impacted the outcome in these patients. Methods: Studies investigating the use of the APRV mode for ARDS patients were searched from electronic databases. We tested individual settings, including (1) high airway pressure (PHigh); (2) low airway pressure (PLow); (3) time at high airway pressure (THigh); and (4) time at low pressure (TLow) for association with PaO2/FiO2 ratio and ICU length of stay. Results: There was no significant difference in PaO2/FiO2 ratio between the groups in any of the four settings (PHigh difference -12.0 [95% CI -100.4, 86.4]; PLow difference 54.3 [95% CI -52.6, 161.1]; TLow difference -27.19 [95% CI -127.0, 72.6]; THigh difference -51.4 [95% CI -170.3, 67.5]). There was high heterogeneity across all parameters (PhHgh I2 = 99.46%, PLow I2 = 99.16%, TLow I2 = 99.31%, THigh I2 = 99.29%). Conclusions: None of the four individual APRV settings independently were associated with differences in outcome. A holistic approach, analyzing all settings in combination, may improve APRV efficacy since it is known that small differences in ventilator settings can significantly alter mortality. Future clinical trials should set and adjust APRV based on the best current scientific evidence available.