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

The place of positive end expiratory pressure in ventilator-induced lung injury generation

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Describe the rationale for concern and accumulating pathophysiologic evidence regarding the adverse effects of high-level positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) on excessive mechanical stress and ventilator-induced lung injury (VILI).

RECENT FINDINGS

Although the inclusion of PEEP in numerical estimates of mechanical power may be theoretically debated, its potential to increase stress, strain, and mean airway pressure are not. Recent laboratory data in a variety of animal models demonstrate that higher levels of PEEP coupled with additional fluids needed to offset its impediment of hemodynamic function are associated with increased VILI. Moreover, counteracting end-tidal hyperinflation by external chest wall pressure may paradoxically improve respiratory mechanics, indicating that lower PEEP helps protect the small 'baby lung' of advanced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS).

SUMMARY

The potentially adverse effects of PEEP on VILI can be considered in three broad categories. First, the contribution of PEEP to total mechanical energy expressed through mechanical power, raised mean airway pressure, and end-tidal hyperinflation; second, the hemodynamic consequences of altered cardiac loading, heightened pulmonary vascular stress and total lung water; and third, the ventilatory consequences of compromised carbon dioxide eliminating efficiency. Minimizing ventilation demands, optimized body positioning and care to avoid unnecessary PEEP are central to lung protection in all stages of ARDS.

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.