Associations between positive end-expiratory pressure and outcome of patients without ARDS at onset of ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Positive End-Expiratory Pressure in Rhinoplasty Surgery; Risks and Benefits

Aims

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of Positive End Expiratory Pressure (PEEP) on surgical field bleeding and its respiratory and hemodynamic consequences in rhinoplasty surgeries.

Materials and methods

This single-blind clinical trial performed in Amir Al-Momenin university Hospital in 2018. Seventy cases of rhinoplasty surgery patients Enrolled and were randomized into two groups; intervention (PEEP = 5) and comparison group (PEEP = 0). Surgical field bleeding and arterial oxygen saturation pulmonary dynamics and hemodynamic parameters were evaluated during operation and in post anesthesia care unit. Data were analyzed by SPSS software using descriptive and analytical statistics.

Results

PEEP applying had no negative effect on surgical bleeding as well as surgeon satisfaction, heart rate and blood pressure were similar in two groups. Pulmonary dynamics and oxygenation were stable and within normal values in all cases. The mean peak airway pressure was 17.87 ± 2.24 in the PEEP group and 16.08 ± 3.37 in the ZEEP group (P = 0.029).

Conclusion

applying low level PEEP during anesthesia improved recovery oxygen saturation but had no negative effects on the patient`s hemodynamics, and did not aggravate bleeding and visual clarity.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12070-023-03854-7.

Impact of a positive end-expiratory pressure strategy on oxygenation, respiratory compliance, and hemodynamics during laparoscopic surgery in non-obese patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) during laparoscopic surgery may increase oxygenation and respiratory compliance. This meta-analysis aimed to compare the impact of different intraoperative PEEP strategies on arterial oxygenation, compliance, and hemodynamics during laparoscopic surgery in non-obese patients.

METHODS

We searched RCTs in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Google Scholar from January 2012 to April 2022 comparing the different intraoperative PEEP (Low PEEP (LPEEP): 0-4 mbar; Moderate PEEP (MPEEP): 5-8 mbar; high PEEP (HPEEP): >8 mbar; individualized PEEP - iPEEP) on arterial oxygenation, respiratory compliance (Cdyn), mean arterial pressure (MAP), and heart rate (HR). We calculated mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI), and predictive intervals (PI) using random-effects models. The Cochrane Bias Risk Assessment Tool was applied.

RESULTS

21 RCTs (n = 1554) met the inclusion criteria. HPEEP vs. LPEEP increased PaO2 (+ 29.38 [16.20; 42.56] mmHg, p < 0.0001) or PaO2/FiO2 (+ 36.7 [+ 2.23; +71.70] mmHg, p = 0.04). HPEEP vs. MPEEP increased PaO2 (+ 22.00 [+ 1.11; +42.88] mmHg, p = 0.04) or PaO2/FiO2 (+ 42.7 [+ 2.74; +82.67] mmHg, p = 0.04). iPEEP vs. MPEEP increased PaO2/FiO2 (+ 115.2 [+ 87.21; +143.20] mmHg, p < 0.001). MPEEP vs. LPEP, and HPEEP vs. MPEEP increased PaO2 or PaO2/FiO2 significantly with different heterogeneity. HPEEP vs. LPEEP increased Cdyn (+ 7.87 [+ 1.49; +14.25] ml/mbar, p = 0.02). MPEEP vs. LPEEP, and HPEEP vs. MPEEP did not impact Cdyn (p = 0.14 and 0.38, respectively). iPEEP vs. LPEEP decreased driving pressure (-4.13 [-2.63; -5.63] mbar, p < 0.001). No significant differences in MAP or HR were found between any subgroups.

CONCLUSION

HPEEP and iPEEP during PNP in non-obese patients could promote oxygenation and increase Cdyn without clinically significant changes in MAP and HR. MPEEP could be insufficient to increase respiratory compliance and improve oxygenation. LPEEP may lead to decreased respiratory compliance and worsened oxygenation.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION

CRD42022362379; registered October 09, 2022.

Lung Ultrasound to Determine the Effect of Lower vs. Higher PEEP on Lung Aeration in Patients without ARDS-A Substudy of a Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Ventilation with lower positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) may cause loss of lung aeration in critically ill invasively ventilated patients. This study investigated whether a systematic lung ultrasound (LUS) scoring system can detect such changes in lung aeration in a study comparing lower versus higher PEEP in invasively ventilated patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

METHODS

Single center substudy of a national, multicenter, randomized clinical trial comparing lower versus higher PEEP ventilation strategy. Fifty-seven patients underwent a systematic 12-region LUS examination within 12 h and between 24 to 48 h after start of invasive ventilation, according to randomization. The primary endpoint was a change in the global LUS aeration score, where a higher value indicates a greater impairment in lung aeration.

RESULTS

Thirty-three and twenty-four patients received ventilation with lower PEEP (median PEEP 1 (0-5) cm H₂O) or higher PEEP (median PEEP 8 (8-8) cm H₂O), respectively. Median global LUS aeration scores within 12 h and between 24 and 48 h were 8 (4 to 14) and 9 (4 to 12) (difference 1 (-2 to 3)) in the lower PEEP group, and 7 (2-11) and 6 (1-12) (difference 0 (-2 to 3)) in the higher PEEP group. Neither differences in changes over time nor differences in absolute scores reached statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

In this substudy of a randomized clinical trial comparing lower PEEP versus higher PEEP in patients without ARDS, LUS was unable to detect changes in lung aeration.

PEEP titration by EIT strategies for patients with ARDS: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine which method of Positive End-expiratory Pressure (PEEP) titration is more useful, and to establish an evidence base for the clinical impact of Electrical Impedance Tomography (EIT) based individual PEEP setting which appears to be a promising method to optimize PEEP in Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS) patients.

DESIGN

A systematic review and meta-analysis.

SETTING

4 databases (PUBMED, EMBASE, Web Of Science, and the Cochrane Library) from 1980 to December 2020 were performed.

PARTICIPANTS

Randomized clinical trials patients with ARDS.

MAIN VARIABLES

PaO₂/FiO₂-ratio and respiratory system compliance.

INTERVENSION

The quality of the studies was assessed with the Cochrane risk and bias tool.

RESULTS

8 trials, including a total of 222 participants, were eligible for analysis. Meta-analysis demonstrates a significantly EIT-based individual PEEP setting for patients receiving higher PaO₂/FiO₂ ratio as compared to other PEEP titration strategies [5 trials, 202 patients, SMD 0.636, (95% CI 0.364-0.908)]. EIT-drived PEEP titration strategy did not significantly increase respiratory system compliance when compared to other peep titration strategies, [7 trials, 202 patients, SMD -0.085, (95% CI -0.342 to 0.172)].

CONCLUSIONS

The benefits of PEEP titration with EIT on clinical outcomes of ARDS in placebo-controlled trials probably result from the visible regional ventilation of EIT. These findings offer clinicians and stakeholders a comprehensive assessment and high-quality evidence for the safety and efficacy of the EIT-based individual PEEP setting as a superior option for patients who undergo ARDS.

Ventilatory settings in the initial 72 h and their association with outcome in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients: a preplanned secondary analysis of the targeted hypothermia versus targeted normothermia after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (TTM2) trial

PURPOSE

The optimal ventilatory settings in patients after cardiac arrest and their association with outcome remain unclear. The aim of this study was to describe the ventilatory settings applied in the first 72 h of mechanical ventilation in patients after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest and their association with 6-month outcomes.

METHODS

Preplanned sub-analysis of the Target Temperature Management-2 trial. Clinical outcomes were mortality and functional status (assessed by the Modified Rankin Scale) 6 months after randomization.

RESULTS

A total of 1848 patients were included (mean age 64 [Standard Deviation, SD = 14] years). At 6 months, 950 (51%) patients were alive and 898 (49%) were dead. Median tidal volume (V_T) was 7 (Interquartile range, IQR = 6.2-8.5) mL per Predicted Body Weight (PBW), positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) was 7 (IQR = 5-9) cmH₂0, plateau pressure was 20 cmH₂0 (IQR = 17-23), driving pressure was 12 cmH₂0 (IQR = 10-15), mechanical power 16.2 J/min (IQR = 12.1-21.8), ventilatory ratio was 1.27 (IQR = 1.04-1.6), and respiratory rate was 17 breaths/minute (IQR = 14-20). Median partial pressure of oxygen was 87 mmHg (IQR = 75-105), and partial pressure of carbon dioxide was 40.5 mmHg (IQR = 36-45.7). Respiratory rate, driving pressure, and mechanical power were independently associated with 6-month mortality (omnibus p-values for their non-linear trajectories: p < 0.0001, p = 0.026, and p = 0.029, respectively). Respiratory rate and driving pressure were also independently associated with poor neurological outcome (odds ratio, OR = 1.035, 95% confidence interval, CI = 1.003-1.068, p = 0.030, and OR = 1.005, 95% CI = 1.001-1.036, p = 0.048). A composite formula calculated as [(4*driving pressure) + respiratory rate] was independently associated with mortality and poor neurological outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Protective ventilation strategies are commonly applied in patients after cardiac arrest. Ventilator settings in the first 72 h after hospital admission, in particular driving pressure and respiratory rate, may influence 6-month outcomes.

Myocardial Function during Ventilation with Lower versus Higher Positive End-Expiratory Pressure in Patients without ARDS

The aim of this study was to investigate whether lower PEEP (positive end-expiratory pressure) had beneficial effects on myocardial function among intensive care unit (ICU) patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) compared to higher PEEP. In this pre-planned substudy of a randomized controlled trial (RELAx), comparing lower to higher PEEP, 44 patients underwent transthoracic echocardiography. The exclusion criteria were known poor left ventricular function and severe shock requiring high dosages of norepinephrine. To create contrast, we also excluded patients who received PEEP between 2 cmH2O and 7 cmH2O in the two randomization arms of the study. The primary outcome was the right ventricular myocardial performance index (MPI), a measure of systolic and diastolic function. The secondary outcomes included systolic and diastolic function parameters. A total of 20 patients were ventilated with lower PEEP (mean ± SD, 0 ± 1 cmH2O), and 24 patients, with higher PEEP (8 ± 1 cmH2O) (mean difference, -8 cmH2O; 95% CI: -8.1 to -7.9 cmH2O; p = 0.01). The tidal volume size was low in both groups (median (IQR), 7.2 (6.3 to 8.1) versus 7.0 (5.3 to 9.1) ml/kg PBW; p = 0.97). The median right ventricular MPI was 0.32 (IQR, 0.26 to 0.39) in the lower-PEEP group versus 0.38 (0.32 to 0.41) in the higher-PEEP group; the median difference was -0.03; 95% CI: -0.11 to 0.03; p = 0.33. The other systolic and diastolic parameters were similar. In patients without ARDS ventilated with a low tidal volume, a lower PEEP had no beneficial effects on the right ventricular MPI.

The critical care literature 2020

Given the dramatic increase in critically ill patients who present to the emergency department for care, along with the persistence of boarding of critically ill patients, it is imperative for the emergency physician to be knowledgeable about recent developments in resuscitation and critical care medicine. This review summarizes important articles published in 2020 that pertain to the resuscitation and care of select critically ill patients. These articles have been selected based on the authors annual review of key critical care, emergency medicine and medicine journals and their opinion of the importance of study findings as it pertains to the care of critically ill ED patients. Several key findings from the studies discussed in this paper include the administration of dexamethasone to patients with COVID-19 infection who require mechanical ventilation or supplemental oxygen, the use of lower levels of positive end-expiratory pressure for patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome, and early initiation of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with refractory ventricular fibrillation if resources are available. Furthermore, the emergency physician should not administer tranexamic acid to patients with acute gastrointestinal bleeding or administer the combination of vitamin C, thiamine, and hydrocortisone for patients with septic shock. Finally, the emergency physician should titrate vasopressor medications to more closely match a patient's chronic perfusion pressure rather than target a mean arterial blood pressure of 65 mmHg for all critically ill patients.

Higher PEEP versus lower PEEP strategies for patients in ICU without acute respiratory distress syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the effects of high and low levels of PEEP on ICU patients without ARDS.

METHODS

We searched public databases (including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and Clinicaltrial.gov). The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment tool was used to evaluate the quality of the included studies.

RESULTS

We included 2307 patients from 24 trials. Although no significant difference was found between high and low PEEP applications in in-hospital mortality (risk ratio[RR] 0.98, 95% confidence interval[CI] [0.81, 1.19], P = 0.87), high PEEP indeed decreased the incidence of ARDS, hypoxemia, and increased the level of PaO₂/FIO₂. In addition, although the overall results did not reveal any advantages of high PEEP in terms of secondary outcomes regarding 28-day mortality, the duration of ventilation, atelectasis, pulmonary barotrauma, hypotension, and so forth, the subgroup analysis concerning the level of low PEEP (ZEEP or not) and patient type (postoperative or medical ones) yielded different results. The TSA results suggested that more RCTs are needed.

CONCLUSIONS

Although ventilation with high PEEP in ICU patients without ARDS may not reduce in-hospital mortality, the decreased incidences of ARDS and hypoxemia and the improvement in PaO₂/FIO₂ were found in the high PEEP arm.

Optimal Positive End Expiratory Pressure Levels in Ventilated Patients Without Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Background: To find the optimal positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) in mechanical ventilated patients without Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome (ARDS), we conducted a Bayesian network meta-analysis and systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different level of PEEP based on a novel classification of PEEP level: ZEEP group (PEEP = 0 cm H2O); lower PEEP group (PEEP = 1–6 cm H2O); intermediate PEEP group (PEEP = 7–10 cm H2O); higher PEEP group (PEEP > 10 cm H2O).

Result: Twenty eight eligible studies with 2,712 patients were included. There were no significant differences in the duration of mechanical ventilation between higher and intermediate PEEP (MD: 0.020, 95% CI: −0.14, 0.28), higher and lower PEEP (MD: −0.010, 95% CI: −0.23, 0.22), higher PEEP and ZEEP (MD: 0.010, 95% CI: −0.40, 0.22), intermediate and lower PEEP (MD: −0.040, 95% CI: −0.18, 0.040), intermediate PEEP and ZEEP (MD: −0.010, 95% CI: −0.42, 0.10), lower PEEP and ZEEP (MD: 0.020, 95% CI: −0.32, 0.13), respectively. Higher PEEP was associated with significantly higher PaO2/FiO2 ratio(PFR) when compared to ZEEP (MD: 73.24, 95% CI: 11.03, 130.7), and higher incidence of pneumothorax when compared to intermediate PEEP, lower PEEP and ZEEP (OR: 2.91e + 12, 95% CI: 40.3, 1.76e + 39; OR: 1.85e + 12, 95% CI: 29.2, 1.18e + 39; and OR: 1.44e + 12, 95% CI: 16.9, 8.70e + 38, respectively). There was no association between PEEP levels and other secondary outcomes.

Conclusion: We identified higher PEEP was associated with significantly higher PFR and higher incidence of pneumothorax. Nonetheless, in terms of other outcomes, no significant differences were detected among four levels of PEEP.

Systematic Review Registration: The study had registered on an international prospective register of systematic reviews, PROSPERO, on 09 April 2021, identifier: [CRD42021241745].

Effectiveness, safety and efficacy of INTELLiVENT-adaptive support ventilation, a closed-loop ventilation mode for use in ICU patients - a systematic review

Introduction: INTELLiVENT-Adaptive Support Ventilation (INTELLiVENT-ASV), an advanced closed-loop ventilation mode for use in intensive care unit (ICU) patients, is equipped with algorithms that automatically adjust settings on the basis of physiologic signals and patient's activity. Here we describe its effectiveness, safety, and efficacy in various types of ICU patients.Areas covered: A systematic search conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and in Google Scholar identified 10 randomized clinical trials.Expert opinion: Studies suggest INTELLiVENT-ASV to be an effective automated mode with regard to the titrations of tidal volume, airway pressure, and oxygen. INTELLiVENT-ASV is as safe as conventional modes. However, thus far studies have not shown INTELLiVENT-ASV to be superior to conventional modes with regard to duration of ventilation and other patient-centered outcomes. Future studies are needed to test its efficacy.

Higher versus lower positive end-expiratory pressure in patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the association of higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), as opposed to lower PEEP, with hospital mortality in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation for reasons other than acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

Methods

We performed an electronic search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, and Web of Science from inception until June 16, 2021 with no language restrictions. In addition, a research-in-progress database and grey literature were searched.

Results

We identified 22 RCTs (2225 patients) comparing higher PEEP (1007 patients) with lower PEEP (991 patients). No statistically significant association between higher PEEP and hospital mortality was observed (risk ratio 1.02, 95% confidence interval 0.89–1.16; I² = 0%, p = 0.62; low certainty of evidence). Among secondary outcomes, higher PEEP was associated with better oxygenation, higher respiratory system compliance, and lower risk of hypoxemia and ARDS occurrence. Furthermore, barotrauma, hypotension, duration of ventilation, lengths of stay, and ICU mortality were similar between the two groups.

Conclusions

In our meta-analysis of RCTs, higher PEEP, compared with lower PEEP, was not associated with mortality in patients without ARDS receiving invasive mechanical ventilation. Further large high-quality RCTs are required to confirm these findings.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13054-021-03669-4.

Effect of different levels of PEEP on mortality in ICU patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether higher positive end- expiratory pressure (PEEP) could provide a survival advantage for patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) compared with lower PEEP.

METHODS

Eligible studies were identified through searches of Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Medline, and Wanfang database from inception up to 1 June 2021. Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was used in this meta-analysis.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified for further evaluation. Higher and lower PEEP arms included 1330 patients and 1650 patients, respectively. A mean level of 9.6±3.4 cmH₂O was applied in the higher PEEP groups and 1.9±2.6 cmH₂O was used in the lower PEEP groups. Higher PEEP, compared with lower PEEP, was not associated with reduction of all-cause mortality (RR 1.03; 95% CI 0.91-1.18; P =0.627), and 28-day mortality (RR 1.07 ; 95% CI 0.92-1.24; P =0.365). In terms of risk of ARDS (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.24-0.78; P =0.005), duration of intensive care unit (MD -1.04; 95%CI-1.36 to -0.73; P < 0.00001), and oxygenation (MD 40.30; 95%CI 0.94 to 79.65; P = 0.045), higher PEEP was superior to lower PEEP. Besides, the pooled analysis showed no significant differences between groups both in the duration of mechanical ventilation (MD 0.00; 95%CI-0.13 to 0.13; P = 0.996) and hospital stay (MD -0.66; 95%CI-1.94 to 0.61; P = 0.309). More importantly, lower PEEP did not increase the risk of pneumonia, atelectasis, barotrauma, hypoxemia, or hypotension among patients compared with higher PEEP. The TSA analysis showed that the results of all-cause mortality and 28-day mortality might be false-negative results.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that a lower PEEP ventilation strategy was non-inferior to a higher PEEP ventilation strategy in ICU patients without ARDS, with no increased risk of all-cause mortality and 28-day mortality. Further high-quality RCTs should be performed to confirm these findings.

Time-Controlled Adaptive Ventilation Versus Volume-Controlled Ventilation in Experimental Pneumonia

OBJECTIVES

We hypothesized that a time-controlled adaptive ventilation strategy would open and stabilize alveoli by controlling inspiratory and expiratory duration. Time-controlled adaptive ventilation was compared with volume-controlled ventilation at the same levels of mean airway pressure and positive end-release pressure (time-controlled adaptive ventilation)/positive end-expiratory pressure (volume-controlled ventilation) in a Pseudomonas aeruginosa-induced pneumonia model.

DESIGN

Animal study.

SETTING

Laboratory investigation.

SUBJECTS

Twenty-one Wistar rats.

INTERVENTIONS

Twenty-four hours after pneumonia induction, Wistar rats (n = 7) were ventilated with time-controlled adaptive ventilation (tidal volume = 8 mL/kg, airway pressure release ventilation for a Thigh = 0.75-0.85 s, release pressure (Plow) set at 0 cm H2O, and generating a positive end-release pressure = 1.6 cm H2O applied for Tlow = 0.11-0.14 s). The expiratory flow was terminated at 75% of the expiratory flow peak. An additional 14 animals were ventilated using volume-controlled ventilation, maintaining similar time-controlled adaptive ventilation levels of positive end-release pressure (positive end-expiratory pressure=1.6 cm H2O) and mean airway pressure = 10 cm H2O. Additional nonventilated animals (n = 7) were used for analysis of molecular biology markers.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

After 1 hour of mechanical ventilation, the heterogeneity score, the expression of pro-inflammatory biomarkers interleukin-6 and cytokine-induced neutrophil chemoattractant-1 in lung tissue were significantly lower in the time-controlled adaptive ventilation than volume-controlled ventilation with similar mean airway pressure groups (p = 0.008, p = 0.011, and p = 0.011, respectively). Epithelial cell integrity, measured by E-cadherin tissue expression, was higher in time-controlled adaptive ventilation than volume-controlled ventilation with similar mean airway pressure (p = 0.004). Time-controlled adaptive ventilation animals had bacteremia counts lower than volume-controlled ventilation with similar mean airway pressure animals, while time-controlled adaptive ventilation and volume-controlled ventilation with similar positive end-release pressure animals had similar colony-forming unit counts. In addition, lung edema and cytokine-induced neutrophil chemoattractant-1 gene expression were more reduced in time-controlled adaptive ventilation than volume-controlled ventilation with similar positive end-release pressure groups.

CONCLUSIONS

In the model of pneumonia used herein, at the same tidal volume and mean airway pressure, time-controlled adaptive ventilation, compared with volume-controlled ventilation, was associated with less lung damage and bacteremia and reduced gene expression of mediators associated with inflammation.

Mechanical ventilation of the healthy lungs: lessons learned from recent trials

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Although there is clear evidence for benefit of protective ventilation settings [including low tidal volume and higher positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP)] in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), it is less clear what the optimal mechanical ventilation settings are for patients with healthy lungs.

RECENT FINDINGS

Use of low tidal volume during operative ventilation decreases postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC). In the critically ill patients with healthy lungs, use of low tidal volume is as effective as intermediate tidal volume. Use of higher PEEP during operative ventilation does not decrease PPCs, whereas hypotension occurred more often compared with use of lower PEEP. In the critically ill patients with healthy lungs, there are conflicting data regarding the use of a higher PEEP, which may depend on recruitability of lung parts. There are limited data suggesting that higher driving pressures because of higher PEEP contribute to PPCs. Lastly, use of hyperoxia does not consistently decrease postoperative infections, whereas it seems to increase PPCs compared with conservative oxygen strategies.

SUMMARY

In patients with healthy lungs, data indicate that low tidal volume but not higher PEEP is beneficial. Thereby, ventilation strategies differ from those in ARDS patients.

Effect of a Lower vs Higher Positive End-Expiratory Pressure Strategy on Ventilator-Free Days in ICU Patients Without ARDS: A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

It is uncertain whether invasive ventilation can use lower positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in critically ill patients without acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether a lower PEEP strategy is noninferior to a higher PEEP strategy regarding duration of mechanical ventilation at 28 days.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Noninferiority randomized clinical trial conducted from October 26, 2017, through December 17, 2019, in 8 intensive care units (ICUs) in the Netherlands among 980 patients without ARDS expected not to be extubated within 24 hours after start of ventilation. Final follow-up was conducted in March 2020.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were randomized to receive invasive ventilation using either lower PEEP, consisting of the lowest PEEP level between 0 and 5 cm H2O (n = 476), or higher PEEP, consisting of a PEEP level of 8 cm H2O (n = 493).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was the number of ventilator-free days at day 28, with a noninferiority margin for the difference in ventilator-free days at day 28 of -10%. Secondary outcomes included ICU and hospital lengths of stay; ICU, hospital, and 28- and 90-day mortality; development of ARDS, pneumonia, pneumothorax, severe atelectasis, severe hypoxemia, or need for rescue therapies for hypoxemia; and days with use of vasopressors or sedation.

RESULTS

Among 980 patients who were randomized, 969 (99%) completed the trial (median age, 66 [interquartile range {IQR}, 56-74] years; 246 [36%] women). At day 28, 476 patients in the lower PEEP group had a median of 18 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-27 days) and 493 patients in the higher PEEP group had a median of 17 ventilator-free days (IQR, 0-27 days) (mean ratio, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.95-∞; P = .007 for noninferiority), and the lower boundary of the 95% CI was within the noninferiority margin. Occurrence of severe hypoxemia was 20.6% vs 17.6% (risk ratio, 1.17; 95% CI, 0.90-1.51; P = .99) and need for rescue strategy was 19.7% vs 14.6% (risk ratio, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.02-1.79; adjusted P = .54) in patients in the lower and higher PEEP groups, respectively. Mortality at 28 days was 38.4% vs 42.0% (hazard ratio, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.73-1.09; P = .99) in patients in the lower and higher PEEP groups, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences in other secondary outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among patients in the ICU without ARDS who were expected not to be extubated within 24 hours, a lower PEEP strategy was noninferior to a higher PEEP strategy with regard to the number of ventilator-free days at day 28. These findings support the use of lower PEEP in patients without ARDS.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03167580.

ERS International Congress, Madrid, 2019: highlights from the Respiratory Intensive Care Assembly

The Respiratory Intensive Care Assembly of the European Respiratory Society is delighted to present the highlights from the 2019 International Congress in Madrid, Spain. We have selected four sessions that discussed recent advances in a wide range of topics: from acute respiratory failure to cough augmentation in neuromuscular disorders and from extra-corporeal life support to difficult ventilator weaning. The subjects are summarised by early career members in close collaboration with the Assembly leadership. We aim to give the reader an update on the most important developments discussed at the conference. Each session is further summarised into a short list of take-home messages.

Changes in ventilator settings and ventilation-induced lung injury in burn patients-A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Ventilation strategies aiming at prevention of ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI), including low tidal volumes (V_T) and use of positive end-expiratory pressures (PEEP) are increasingly used in critically ill patients. It is uncertain whether ventilation practices changed in a similar way in burn patients. Our objective was to describe applied ventilator settings and their relation to development of VILI in burn patients.

DATA SOURCES

Systematic search of the literature in PubMed and EMBASE using MeSH, EMTREE terms and keywords referring to burn or inhalation injury and mechanical ventilation.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies reporting ventilator settings in adult or pediatric burn or inhalation injury patients receiving mechanical ventilation during the ICU stay.

DATA EXTRACTION

Two authors independently screened abstracts of identified studies for eligibility and performed data extraction.

DATA SYNTHESIS

The search identified 35 eligible studies. V_T declined from 14 ml/kg in studies performed before to around 8 ml/kg predicted body weight in studies performed after 2006. Low-PEEP levels (<10 cmH₂O) were reported in 70% of studies, with no changes over time. Peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) values above 35 cmH₂O were frequently reported. Nevertheless, 75% of the studies conducted in the last decade used limited maximum airway pressures (≤35 cmH₂O) compared to 45% of studies conducted prior to 2006. Occurrence of barotrauma, reported in 45% of the studies, ranged from 0 to 29%, and was more frequent in patients ventilated with higher compared to lower airway pressures.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review shows noticeable trends of ventilatory management in burn patients that mirrors those in critically ill non-burn patients. Variability in available ventilator data precluded us from drawing firm conclusions on the association between ventilator settings and the occurrence of VILI in burn patients.

The basics of respiratory mechanics: ventilator-derived parameters

Mechanical ventilation is a life-support system used to maintain adequate lung function in patients who are critically ill or undergoing general anesthesia. The benefits and harms of mechanical ventilation depend not only on the operator's setting of the machine (input), but also on their interpretation of ventilator-derived parameters (outputs), which should guide ventilator strategies. Once the inputs-tidal volume (V_T), positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), respiratory rate (RR), and inspiratory airflow (V')-have been adjusted, the following outputs should be measured: intrinsic PEEP, peak (Ppeak) and plateau (Pplat) pressures, driving pressure (ΔP), transpulmonary pressure (P_L), mechanical energy, mechanical power, and intensity. During assisted mechanical ventilation, in addition to these parameters, the pressure generated 100 ms after onset of inspiratory effort (P_0.1) and the pressure-time product per minute (PTP/min) should also be evaluated. The aforementioned parameters should be seen as a set of outputs, all of which need to be strictly monitored at bedside in order to develop a personalized, case-by-case approach to mechanical ventilation. Additionally, more clinical research to evaluate the safe thresholds of each parameter in injured and uninjured lungs is required.

RELAx - REstricted versus Liberal positive end-expiratory pressure in patients without ARDS: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Evidence for benefit of high positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is largely lacking for invasively ventilated, critically ill patients with uninjured lungs. We hypothesize that ventilation with low PEEP is noninferior to ventilation with high PEEP with regard to the number of ventilator-free days and being alive at day 28 in this population.  METHODS/DESIGN: The "REstricted versus Liberal positive end-expiratory pressure in patients without ARDS" trial (RELAx) is a national, multicenter, randomized controlled, noninferiority trial in adult intensive care unit (ICU) patients with uninjured lungs who are expected not to be extubated within 24 h. RELAx will run in 13 ICUs in the Netherlands to enroll 980 patients under invasive ventilation. In all patients, low tidal volumes are used. Patients assigned to ventilation with low PEEP will receive the lowest possible PEEP between 0 and 5 cm H2O, while patients assigned to ventilation with high PEEP will receive PEEP of 8 cm H2O. The primary endpoint is the number of ventilator-free days and being alive at day 28, a composite endpoint for liberation from the ventilator and mortality until day 28, with a noninferiority margin for a difference between groups of 0.5 days. Secondary endpoints are length of stay (LOS), mortality, and occurrence of pulmonary complications, including severe hypoxemia, major atelectasis, need for rescue therapies, pneumonia, pneumothorax, and development of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Hemodynamic support and sedation needs will be collected and compared.

DISCUSSION

RELAx will be the first sufficiently sized randomized controlled trial in invasively ventilated, critically ill patients with uninjured lungs using a clinically relevant and objective endpoint to determine whether invasive, low-tidal-volume ventilation with low PEEP is noninferior to ventilation with high PEEP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov , ID: NCT03167580 . Registered on 23 May 2017.

Potentially modifiable respiratory variables contributing to outcome in ICU patients without ARDS: a secondary analysis of PRoVENT

BACKGROUND

The majority of critically ill patients do not suffer from acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). To improve the treatment of these patients, we aimed to identify potentially modifiable factors associated with outcome of these patients.

METHODS

The PRoVENT was an international, multicenter, prospective cohort study of consecutive patients under invasive mechanical ventilatory support. A predefined secondary analysis was to examine factors associated with mortality. The primary endpoint was all-cause in-hospital mortality.

RESULTS

935 Patients were included. In-hospital mortality was 21%. Compared to patients who died, patients who survived had a lower risk of ARDS according to the 'Lung Injury Prediction Score' and received lower maximum airway pressure (P_max), driving pressure (ΔP), positive end-expiratory pressure, and FiO₂ levels. Tidal volume size was similar between the groups. Higher P_max was a potentially modifiable ventilatory variable associated with in-hospital mortality in multivariable analyses. ΔP was not independently associated with in-hospital mortality, but reliable values for ΔP were available for 343 patients only. Non-modifiable factors associated with in-hospital mortality were older age, presence of immunosuppression, higher non-pulmonary sequential organ failure assessment scores, lower pulse oximetry readings, higher heart rates, and functional dependence.

CONCLUSIONS

Higher P_max was independently associated with higher in-hospital mortality in mechanically ventilated critically ill patients under mechanical ventilatory support for reasons other than ARDS. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01868321).

Effects of peep on lung injury, pulmonary function, systemic circulation and mortality in animals with uninjured lungs-a systematic review

It is well-known that positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) can prevent ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI) and improve pulmonary physiology in animals with injured lungs. It's uncertain whether PEEP has similar effects in animals with uninjured lungs. A systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing different PEEP levels in animals with uninjured lungs was performed. Trials in animals with injured lungs were excluded, as were trials that compared ventilation strategies that also differed with respect to other ventilation settings, e.g., tidal volume size. The search identified ten eligible trials in 284 animals, including rodents and small as well as large mammals. Duration of ventilation was highly variable, from 1 to 6 hours and tidal volume size varied from 7 to 60 mL/kg. PEEP ranged from 3 to 20 cmH₂O, and from 0 to 5 cmH₂O, in the 'high PEEP' or 'PEEP' arms, and in the 'low PEEP' or 'no PEEP' arms, respectively. Definitions used for lung injury were quite diverse, as were other outcome measures. The effects of PEEP, at any level, on lung injury was not straightforward, with some trials showing less injury with 'high PEEP' or 'PEEP' and other trials showing no benefit. In most trials, 'high PEEP' or 'PEEP' was associated with improved respiratory system compliance, and better oxygen parameters. However, 'high PEEP' or 'PEEP' was also associated with occurrence of hypotension, a reduction in cardiac output, or development of hyperlactatemia. There were no differences in mortality. The number of trials comparing 'high PEEP' or 'PEEP' with 'low PEEP' or 'no PEEP' in animals with uninjured lungs is limited, and results are difficult to compare. Based on findings of this systematic review it's uncertain whether PEEP, at any level, truly prevents lung injury, while most trials suggest potential harmful effects on the systemic circulation.

Patients with uninjured lungs may also benefit from lung-protective ventilator settings

Although mechanical ventilation is a life-saving strategy in critically ill patients and an indispensable tool in patients under general anesthesia for surgery, it also acts as a double-edged sword. Indeed, ventilation is increasingly recognized as a potentially dangerous intrusion that has the potential to harm lungs, in a condition known as ‘ventilator-induced lung injury’ (VILI). So-called ‘lung-protective’ ventilator settings aiming at prevention of VILI have been shown to improve outcomes in patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and, over the last few years, there has been increasing interest in possible benefit of lung-protective ventilation in patients under ventilation for reasons other than ARDS. Patients without ARDS could benefit from tidal volume reduction during mechanical ventilation. However, it is uncertain whether higher levels of positive end-expiratory pressure could benefit these patients as well. Finally, recent evidence suggests that patients without ARDS should receive low driving pressures during ventilation.