The impact of fluid status and decremental PEEP strategy on cardiac function and lung and kidney damage in mild-moderate experimental acute respiratory distress syndrome

Effects of positive end-expiratory pressure on intracranial pressure, cerebral perfusion pressure, and brain oxygenation in acute brain injury: Friend or foe? A scoping review

Background

Patients with acute brain injury (ABI) are a peculiar population because ABI does not only affect the brain but also other organs such as the lungs, as theorized in brain-lung crosstalk models. ABI patients often require mechanical ventilation (MV) to avoid the complications of impaired respiratory function that can follow ABI; MV should be settled with meticulousness owing to its effects on the intracranial compartment, especially regarding positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP). This scoping review aimed to (1) describe the physiological basis and mechanisms related to the effects of PEEP in ABI; (2) examine how clinical research is conducted on this topic; (3) identify methods for setting PEEP in ABI; and (4) investigate the impact of the application of PEEP in ABI on the outcome.

Methods

The five-stage paradigm devised by Peters et al. and expanded by Arksey and O'Malley, Levac et al., and the Joanna Briggs Institute was used for methodology. We also adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension criteria. Inclusion criteria: we compiled all scientific data from peer-reviewed journals and studies that discussed the application of PEEP and its impact on intracranial pressure, cerebral perfusion pressure, and brain oxygenation in adult patients with ABI. Exclusion criteria: studies that only examined a pediatric patient group (those under the age of 18), experiments conducted solely on animals; studies without intracranial pressure and/or cerebral perfusion pressure determinations, and studies with incomplete information. Two authors searched and screened for inclusion in papers published up to July 2023 using the PubMed-indexed online database. Data were presented in narrative and tubular form.

Results

The initial search yielded 330 references on the application of PEEP in ABI, of which 36 met our inclusion criteria. PEEP has recognized beneficial effects on gas exchange, but it produces hemodynamic changes that should be predicted to avoid undesired consequences on cerebral blood flow and intracranial pressure. Moreover, the elastic properties of the lungs influence the transmission of the forces applied by MV over the brain so they should be taken into consideration. Currently, there are no specific tools that can predict the effect of PEEP on the brain, but there is an established need for a comprehensive monitoring approach for these patients, acknowledging the etiology of ABI and the measurable variables to personalize MV.

Conclusion

PEEP can be safely used in patients with ABI to improve gas exchange keeping in mind its potentially harmful effects, which can be predicted with adequate monitoring supported by bedside non-invasive neuromonitoring tools.

Hemodynamic effects of positive end-expiratory pressure

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is required in the Berlin definition of acute respiratory distress syndrome and is a cornerstone of its treatment. Application of PEEP increases airway pressure and modifies pleural and transpulmonary pressures according to respiratory mechanics, resulting in blood volume alteration into the pulmonary circulation. This can in turn affect right ventricular preload, afterload and function. At the opposite, PEEP may improve left ventricular function, providing no deleterious effect occurs on the right ventricle.

RECENT FINDINGS

This review examines the impact of PEEP on cardiac function with regards to heart-lung interactions, and describes its consequences on organs perfusion and function, including the kidney, gut, liver and the brain. PEEP in itself is not beneficious nor detrimental on end-organ hemodynamics, but its hemodynamic effects vary according to both respiratory mechanics and association with other hemodynamic variables such as central venous or mean arterial pressure. There are parallels in the means of preventing deleterious impact of PEEP on the lungs, heart, kidney, liver and central nervous system.

SUMMARY

The quest for optimal PEEP settings has been a prominent goal in ARDS research for the last decades. Intensive care physician must maintain a high degree of vigilance towards hemodynamic effects of PEEP on cardiac function and end-organs circulation.

Pressure-support compared with pressure-controlled ventilation mitigates lung and brain injury in experimental acute ischemic stroke in rats

BACKGROUND

We aimed to evaluate the pulmonary and cerebral effects of low-tidal volume ventilation in pressure-support (PSV) and pressure-controlled (PCV) modes at two PEEP levels in acute ischemic stroke (AIS).

METHODS

In this randomized experimental study, AIS was induced by thermocoagulation in 30 healthy male Wistar rats. After 24 h, AIS animals were randomly assigned to PSV or PCV with VT = 6 mL/kg and PEEP = 2 cmH2O (PSV-PEEP2 and PCV-PEEP2) or PEEP = 5 cmH2O (PSV-PEEP5 and PCV-PEEP5) for 2 h. Lung mechanics, arterial blood gases, and echocardiography were evaluated before and after the experiment. Lungs and brain tissue were removed for histologic and molecular biology analysis. The primary endpoint was diffuse alveolar damage (DAD) score; secondary endpoints included brain histology and brain and lung molecular biology markers.

RESULTS

In lungs, DAD was lower with PSV-PEEP5 than PCV-PEEP5 (p < 0.001); interleukin (IL)-1β was lower with PSV-PEEP2 than PCV-PEEP2 (p = 0.016) and PSV-PEEP5 than PCV-PEEP5 (p = 0.046); zonula occludens-1 (ZO-1) was lower in PCV-PEEP5 than PCV-PEEP2 (p = 0.042). In brain, necrosis, hemorrhage, neuropil edema, and CD45 + microglia were lower in PSV than PCV animals at PEEP = 2 cmH2O (p = 0.036, p = 0.025, p = 0.018, p = 0.011, respectively) and PEEP = 5 cmH2O (p = 0.003, p = 0.003, p = 0.007, p = 0.003, respectively); IL-1β was lower while ZO-1 was higher in PSV-PEEP2 than PCV-PEEP2 (p = 0.009, p = 0.007, respectively), suggesting blood-brain barrier integrity. Claudin-5 was higher in PSV-PEEP2 than PSV-PEEP5 (p = 0.036).

CONCLUSION

In experimental AIS, PSV compared with PCV reduced lung and brain injury. Lung ZO-1 reduced in PCV with PEEP = 2 versus PEEP = 5 cmH2O, while brain claudin-5 increased in PSV with PEEP = 2 versus PEEP = 5 cmH2O.

Endotracheal tube, by the venturi effect, reduces the efficacy of increasing inlet pressure in improving pendelluft

In mechanically ventilated severe acute respiratory distress syndrome patients, spontaneous inspiratory effort generates more negative pressure in the dorsal lung than in the ventral lung. The airflow caused by this pressure difference is called pendelluft, which is a possible mechanisms of patient self-inflicted lung injury. This study aimed to use computer simulation to understand how the endotracheal tube and insufficient ventilatory support contribute to pendelluft. We established two models. In the invasive model, an endotracheal tube was connected to the tracheobronchial tree with 34 outlets grouped into six locations: the right and left upper, lower, and middle lobes. In the non-invasive model, the upper airway, including the glottis, was connected to the tracheobronchial tree. To recreate the inspiratory effort of acute respiratory distress syndrome patients, the lower lobe pressure was set at -13 cmH2O, while the upper and middle lobe pressure was set at -6.4 cmH2O. The inlet pressure was set from 10 to 30 cmH2O to recreate ventilatory support. Using the finite volume method, the total flow rates through each model and toward each lobe were calculated. The invasive model had half the total flow rate of the non-invasive model (1.92 L/s versus 3.73 L/s under 10 cmH2O, respectively). More pendelluft (gas flow into the model from the outlets) was observed in the invasive model than in the non-invasive model. The inlet pressure increase from 10 to 30 cmH2O decreased pendelluft by 11% and 29% in the invasive and non-invasive models, respectively. In the invasive model, a faster jet flowed from the tip of the endotracheal tube toward the lower lobes, consequently entraining gas from the upper and middle lobes. Increasing ventilatory support intensifies the jet from the endotracheal tube, causing a venturi effect at the bifurcation in the tracheobronchial tree. Clinically acceptable ventilatory support cannot completely prevent pendelluft.

Fluid management strategies and their interaction with mechanical ventilation: from experimental studies to clinical practice

Patients on mechanical ventilation may receive intravenous fluids via restrictive or liberal fluid management. A clear and objective differentiation between restrictive and liberal fluid management strategies is lacking in the literature. The liberal approach has been described as involving fluid rates ranging from 1.2 to 12 times higher than the restrictive approach. A restrictive fluid management may lead to hypoperfusion and distal organ damage, and a liberal fluid strategy may result in endothelial shear stress and glycocalyx damage, cardiovascular complications, lung edema, and distal organ dysfunction. The association between fluid and mechanical ventilation strategies and how they interact toward ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) could potentiate the damage. For instance, the combination of a liberal fluids and pressure-support ventilation, but not pressure control ventilation, may lead to further lung damage in experimental models of acute lung injury. Moreover, under liberal fluid management, the application of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) or an abrupt decrease in PEEP yielded higher endothelial cell damage in the lungs. Nevertheless, the translational aspects of these findings are scarce. The aim of this narrative review is to provide better understanding of the interaction between different fluid and ventilation strategies and how these interactions may affect lung and distal organs. The weaning phase of mechanical ventilation and the deresuscitation phase are not explored in this review.

Challenges in ARDS Definition, Management, and Identification of Effective Personalized Therapies

Over the last decade, the management of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) has made considerable progress both regarding supportive and pharmacologic therapies. Lung protective mechanical ventilation is the cornerstone of ARDS management. Current recommendations on mechanical ventilation in ARDS include the use of low tidal volume (V_T) 4-6 mL/kg of predicted body weight, plateau pressure (P_PLAT) < 30 cmH₂O, and driving pressure (∆P) < 14 cmH₂O. Moreover, positive end-expiratory pressure should be individualized. Recently, variables such as mechanical power and transpulmonary pressure seem promising for limiting ventilator-induced lung injury and optimizing ventilator settings. Rescue therapies such as recruitment maneuvers, vasodilators, prone positioning, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, and extracorporeal carbon dioxide removal have been considered for patients with severe ARDS. Regarding pharmacotherapies, despite more than 50 years of research, no effective treatment has yet been found. However, the identification of ARDS sub-phenotypes has revealed that some pharmacologic therapies that have failed to provide benefits when considering all patients with ARDS can show beneficial effects when these patients were stratified into specific sub-populations; for example, those with hyperinflammation/hypoinflammation. The aim of this narrative review is to provide an overview on current advances in the management of ARDS from mechanical ventilation to pharmacological treatments, including personalized therapy.

Biological impact of restrictive and liberal fluid strategies at low and high PEEP levels on lung and distal organs in experimental acute respiratory distress syndrome

Background: Fluid regimens in acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) are conflicting. The amount of fluid and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) level may interact leading to ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI). We therefore evaluated restrictive and liberal fluid strategies associated with low and high PEEP levels with regard to lung and kidney damage, as well as cardiorespiratory function in endotoxin-induced ARDS.

Methods: Thirty male Wistar rats received an intratracheal instillation of Escherichia coli lipopolysaccharide. After 24 h, the animals were anesthetized, protectively ventilated (V_T = 6 ml/kg), and randomized to restrictive (5 ml/kg/h) or liberal (40 ml/kg/h) fluid strategies (Ringer lactate). Both groups were then ventilated with PEEP = 3 cmH₂O (PEEP3) and PEEP = 9 cmH₂O (PEEP9) for 1 h (n = 6/group). Echocardiography, arterial blood gases, and lung mechanics were evaluated throughout the experiments. Histologic analyses were done on the lungs, and molecular biology was assessed in lungs and kidneys using six non-ventilated animals with no fluid therapy.

Results: In lungs, the liberal group showed increased transpulmonary plateau pressure compared with the restrictive group (liberal, 23.5 ± 2.9 cmH₂O; restrictive, 18.8 ± 2.3 cmH₂O, p = 0.046) under PEEP = 9 cmH₂O. Gene expression associated with inflammation (interleukin [IL]-6) was higher in the liberal-PEEP9 group than the liberal-PEEP3 group (p = 0.006) and restrictive-PEEP9 (p = 0.012), Regardless of the fluid strategy, lung mechanical power and the heterogeneity index were higher, whereas birefringence for claudin-4 and zonula-ocludens-1 gene expression were lower in the PEEP9 groups. Perivascular edema was higher in liberal groups, regardless of PEEP levels. Markers related to damage to epithelial cells [club cell secreted protein (CC16)] and the extracellular matrix (syndecan) were higher in the liberal-PEEP9 group than the liberal-PEEP3 group (p = 0.010 and p = 0.024, respectively). In kidneys, the expression of IL-6 and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin was higher in PEEP9 groups, regardless of the fluid strategy. For the liberal strategy, PEEP = 9 cmH₂O compared with PEEP = 3 cmH₂O reduced the right ventricle systolic volume (37%) and inferior vena cava collapsibility index (45%).

Conclusion: The combination of a liberal fluid strategy and high PEEP led to more lung damage. The application of high PEEP, regardless of the fluid strategy, may also be deleterious to kidneys.

Effects of different fluid management on lung and kidney during pressure-controlled and pressure-support ventilation in experimental acute lung injury

Optimal fluid management is critical during mechanical ventilation to mitigate lung damage. Under normovolemia and protective ventilation, pulmonary tensile stress during pressure-support ventilation (PSV) results in comparable lung protection to compressive stress during pressure-controlled ventilation (PCV) in experimental acute lung injury (ALI). It is not yet known whether tensile stress can lead to comparable protection to compressive stress in ALI under a liberal fluid strategy (LF). A conservative fluid strategy (CF) was compared with LF during PSV and PCV on lungs and kidneys in an established model of ALI. Twenty-eight male Wistar rats received endotoxin intratracheally. After 24 h, they were treated with CF (minimum volume of Ringer's lactate to maintain normovolemia and mean arterial pressure ≥70 mmHg) or LF (~4 times higher than CF) combined with PSV or PCV (VT  = 6 ml/kg, PEEP = 3 cmH2 O) for 1 h. Nonventilated animals (n = 4) were used for molecular biology analyses. CF-PSV compared with LF-PSV: (1) decreased the diffuse alveolar damage score (10 [7.8-12] vs. 25 [23-31.5], p = 0.006), mainly due to edema in axial and alveolar parenchyma; (2) increased birefringence for occludin and claudin-4 in lung tissue and expression of zonula-occludens-1 and metalloproteinase-9 in lung. LF compared with CF reduced neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin and interleukin-6 expression in the kidneys in PSV and PCV. In conclusion, CF compared with LF combined with PSV yielded less lung epithelial cell damage in the current model of ALI. However, LF compared with CF resulted in less kidney injury markers, regardless of the ventilatory strategy.