Impact of Lung Expansion Therapy Using Positive End-Expiratory Pressure in Mechanically Ventilated Patients Submitted to Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Pulmonary expansion manoeuvres compared to usual care on ventilatory mechanics, oxygenation, length of mechanical ventilation and hospital stay, extubation, atelectasis, and mortality of patients in mechanical ventilation: A randomized clinical trial

Pulmonary expansion manoeuvres are therapeutic techniques used to prevent and reverse atelectasis; however, no randomized controlled trials have provided evidence supporting the use of this intervention among individuals on mechanical ventilation.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effects of chest compression-decompression and chest block manoeuvres compared to usual care among patients on mechanical ventilation.

METHODS

The current study was a randomized clinical trial of adult subjects on mechanical ventilation for 12 to 48 hours. The control group received usual care (passive or active mobilization, manoeuvres for airway clearance and tracheal aspiration). The intervention group received usual care plus two lung expansion manoeuvres, i.e., chest decompression and chest block, while remaining on mechanical ventilation. Assessments were performed before and after usual care, immediately after the intervention and 30 minutes after the intervention. The primary outcome was static compliance. The secondary outcomes were the incidence of atelectasis, dynamic compliance, airway resistance, driving pressure, oxygenation, duration of mechanical ventilation, extubation success, length of hospital and ICU stay, and mortality.

RESULTS

Fifty-one participants (67±15 years old, 53% men, 26 in the control group and 25 in the intervention group) were evaluated. No differences in static compliance were observed between groups (intervention minus control) before and after expansion manoeuvres [3.64 ml/cmH2O (95% CI: -0.36-7.65, p = 0.074)]. Peripheral oxygen saturation differed between groups before and after expansion manoeuvres, with more favourable outcome observed in the control group [-1.04% (95% CI: -1.94 --0.14), p = 0.027]. No differences were found in other outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Chest compression-decompression and chest block manoeuvres did not improve ventilatory mechanics, the incidence of atelectasis, oxygenation, the duration of mechanical ventilation, the length of stay in the ICU and hospital, or mortality in individuals on mechanical ventilation. The findings of this study can be valuable for guiding evidence-based clinical practice and developing a therapeutic approach that provides real benefits for this population.

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].